Whoa. So much wrong with that statement. You do realize that insecure programs can cause many problems other than just exploiting holes in the OS, right?
So, yes while there are definitely problems with Linux, Windows, Unix, and Mac OS, programs themselves still need to be secure and application programmers need to be the ones making sure their programs are secure.
An with new optical technology thats in the works, this whole idea of a camera - a device whose sole purpose is to take still images will go the way of the buggy-whip.
Well unless they are finding a way for a phone to do optical zoom there's no way single purpose cameras are going the way of the buggy-whip.
And my guess is, if they do manage to offer optical zoom it will probably only be in the 2x to 3x range.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh. He's serious.
Usage of robots was/is prohibited by JSTOR.
Then its up to JSTOR to detect and block bots.
Putting a web server on the internet means that people will connect to it with various types of software. You don't get to determine what that software is -- a TOS that says "no IE" is meaningless, and so it one that says "no bots"; and using IE or bots to access that site, in and of itself, is not a wrong.
When you are selling access to your servers to academic institutions you most certainly do get to determine how those users then connect to you, how much they can download, etc. If the academic institution doesn't like those terms they can go elsewhere for the content.
Nice try. But it wasn't his window he was trying to force.
Blame the litigation happy culture that has arisen.
"My boy Jonny died on your property. Sure he had to climb a 10 foot electrified fence with barbed wire on top and then get past 5 security guards and surveillance cameras. But you should have done more to stop him. I'm going to sue!!!"
Oh, come on, please - that's intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, apple paid for it, but they certainly killed lala, and it was certainly part of the contract. They didn't want Google to get that power, and they didn't want an iTunes competitor. Trying to wrap this in a "free market" huggy-blanket is not just naive, it's dishonest.
You seemed to have missed this in the article:
Google was worried, they moved fast. They presented Nguyen with an offer for the company. Previously, Bill told M&A from Google what it would take to acquire the company. Instead of meeting his demands they decided (via a lowball offer) to see if Nguyen was desperate or bluffing.
Nguyen went to Google before Apple. Google had a chance but decided to play games by lowballing. They lost out. It's not like Apple shut Google out of a chance to buy Lala.
He put it up for sale. Apple made and offer and he accepted. End of story.
I've used PacSafe stuff many times. Basically all of my paranoia is gone when I go way over the top some times. I often use them to hold bags on motorcycles and when I just want to leave my heavy bag somewhere and keep it safe so I can do something more casual.
You can't use them for checked or carry on on a plane. TSA freaks out. You have to pack the packsafe stuff in a normal bag when on a plane.
I have no affiliation with pacsafe what so ever. I'm just a happy customer.
So you have to pack your stuff in another suitcase that is not your pacsafe suitcase and pack your pacsafe suitcase into that other suitcase as well?
That's stupid.
The best feature of the password is that it's in your head. You carry it around everywhere, and it can never be physically taken from you.
This proposed plan just makes cellphones that much more attractive to steal.
The WORST feature of the password is that it's in your head. I have 20+ login passwords between work and home, my security is lower because you have to simplify them to remember them. If we can find a way to escape the tyranny of passwords that can generally be cracked by anyone who's determined anyway it can only be progress. Not that I have any faith in any organisation to do it after many failed or barely passable attempts (biometrics, smart cards etc).
Maybe YOU have to simplify them. Don't lump the rest of us in with your inability to remember complex passwords.
Where I live phone books only list landlines and the name and address tied to that land line.
A lot of people are going cell phone only. One of the benefits being you have a private number without having to pay the phone company extortion money to keep your name, number and address out of their phone book.
Switch glasses. Idea fails.
3 watts of crystal clear reception.
If their faith prevents them from getting something as simple as a flu shot why are they even working in the field of medicine???
Which is basically free.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
