Comment Silky smooth? Hah (Score 1) 60
which means silky smooth playback
Not on my bloody computer it doesn't. Might be because I have an Optimus system (switches between Intel for most things, Nvidia when required). Oh well.
which means silky smooth playback
Not on my bloody computer it doesn't. Might be because I have an Optimus system (switches between Intel for most things, Nvidia when required). Oh well.
Australian ISP Offers Pro-bono Legal Advice To Accu r sed Pirates
Yarrgh, that be better.
So, you're saying the problem is that there are currently too many messaging apps, and no agreed upon standard?
I'm saying it's a problem, sometimes, but nothing that keeps me awake at night.
And the solution to that problem is to create yet another messaging app?
It's not a messaging app. There's no login, no authentication, no friend requests. It's for sharing generic data, not authenticated messages, with someone in your physical vicinity. It fulfils a pretty different purpose which, when attempted over the various messaging channels out there, leads to issues such as I outlined.
As a Chrome extension, or even integrated into Chrome, I'm not sure it'll make many waves, and possibly more useful between one person's multiple devices (phone to laptop etc) than between people. Built in to Android? That might be useful. Not too convinced really.
Apps like Bump have been around for years.
Bump is no more. It required centralised servers, which Tone doesn't.
Look, just pretend it's a seed, okay?
Let me send you this link on Skype. Oh wait, you don't have Skype. No, I don't have WhatsApp. Facebook? No. Okay, I'll email it to you. Wait, what's your address? Okay, I'll just type that in. Damn you, autocorrect! Okay, sent.
Not got it yet? Did you check your spam folder? Okay, there you go. Haha, what a funny kitty. Totally worth all that screwing around working out how to send the link to you when we could have just each pressed one or two buttons in Chrome*.
~~~
That's not to say that Google Chrome isn't a solution looking for a problem.
*And of course, it could then easily continue with "Wait, do you have Chrome?" and so on.
Breaking the single, most common 1024-bit prime used by web servers
Well that's silly. They should try using different primes for a start.
That's his point. The "What's of particular interest..." suggests it's an unusual and unexpected occurence (although the summary doesn't even say it's a girl, the OP seems to have thought it did).
Seems a bit condescending, why wouldn't a girl be able to do this?
So you plug the device into an SSH port
Are you from TRON?
100% of galaxies have supermassive black holes near them.
Not quite.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_...
So four galaxies around the same age had nearly the same mass by sheer random probability
That's one possibility. Funny thing about science, though, is that it isn't just going to shrug and say "Eh. Probability." and ignore something interesting.
"We looked at 1% of the universe and didn't see something like this so it must be impossible" is not valid science.
No, it's not. But then no-one's saying that.
Nope. She was named, as Jane Doe.
Which is not her name. Well, it might be, but it almost certainly isn't.
So you advocate for that police state where anyone arrested is obviously guilty unless they prove otherwise.
No, I don't, and I've never said he's obviously guilty. I'm not in a court of law. I'm not going to be on the jury. I'm allowed to express my opinion that it's a little bit suspicious that he's taken the opportunity to state it's "out of context" without stating "I didn't do it."
And they are a people with the knowledge, not the FBI and not Roberts.
Blowhard or not, I'm pretty sure Roberts is the one who knows better than anyone else whether or not he did this.
"If he did what he said he did, why is he not in jail?
Because, contrary to some opinions, America is not yet a police state, and they still like to have silly things like trials.
And if he didn't do it, why is the FBI saying he did?"
A better question would be "why isn't he saying he didn't?"
You can't charge someone with having killed "someone" unless you name that someone.
Eh, I'm pretty sure you can. Here's one such case
You can't even charge them if you have a name of the murdered, unless you have a time and place named.
Again, that seems pretty unlikely.
Frankly, it's complete bullshit. The systems are completely, physically separate. There is no way to hack the thrust from the in-flight entertainment system because they are not connected to each other.
What are your qualifications to be able to say so?
The systems should be separate. There should be no way to hack into avionics. That doesn't necessarily make it so.
If you really do know, then great, I am more informed than I was previously was.
Shakespeare was an ape, not a monkey. And he didn't have a typewriter.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
