Comment Perl (Score 5, Interesting) 536
Perl 5 pretty much satisfies everything you're looking for. What's the problem with Perl again?
Perl 5 pretty much satisfies everything you're looking for. What's the problem with Perl again?
Thank you!
The summary makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. So the people who wrote the law don't think there are any costs of compliance? I'm sure that's not news. That right there is a HUGE problem with government solutions.
1 in 10 deaths, huh? That's a bold statement considering the huge qualifications on it:
* 22-64 years old
* preventable
So the actual number is much less than 1 in 10, not much more as the summary says.
Not "incentivizing". "Inciting".
Neither "incent" nor "incentivize" are words. Using them makes you look illiterate.
I'll say we're tuning it out. With AdBlock we don't even receive it.
I was asking about this on the OVH forums just the other day, in fact:
Our IPMI are actually configured on a private network separated from Dedicated Servers network using a private VLAN for all the IPMI traffic fully secured via our network equipement.
There is two way you can access the IPMI connection:
1- Over a Java applet which generate and send you a
2- Over a webrowser via Serial over LAN that use a temporarly generated user valid for this session only.
We already have "incite".
The summary misses a key point. Yes they scan and store the entire book, but they are _NOT_ making the entire book available to everyone. For the most part they are just making it searchable.
Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."
So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.
And in what way would migrating to this new thing be any easier than IPv6? In either case, it's an entirely different protocol.
Exactly. Like, for example, in the title of this article.
But in the case of the title of this article, "whom" is entirely correct.
Exactly what definition excludes those people from your assertion that "everyone upgraded appropriately"?
That's not necessarily true. People may have "panic upgraded" who were using a supported and up-to-date (and not vulnerable) 0.9.8. People may have "panic upgraded" by building and installing the latest OpenSSL, not knowing that their distribution had pushed out a patched version of the version they had been running. Now, their OpenSSL might be totally outside of package management, and they could really be in trouble for this one, unless they're paying a lot of attention (which they aren't, or they wouldn't have screwed up in the first place).
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
