I know you can configure some options for PGP to block the use of insecure ciphers, but is there any way to configure a Linux/Debian box so that it refuses to accept insecure ciphers by default? Not just for the browser, but globally for all SSL connections.
Why would I pay $50-75 a year to a credit card company, buy a $300-500 "smart phone", and pay $40-80/month for the "plan" for the phone just to be able to spend my own money?
If you've got money to waste, knock yourself out. I don't.
Are the search results relevant to my query?
That's all I care about.
I don't give two shits about someone's web portal losing eyeballs and customers. If you're selling relevant products, you'll show up in the search results. If you're not, I don't give a damn about you. You don't have a "right" to profit -- you have to earn it.
The whole question of Swift vs. Objective-C is irrelevant, anyhow. The original article is asking about C++ vs. Objective-C.
Their initial target platform is Linux, not MacOS or iOS.
Which brings me back to my original point: Objective-C is a dead-end.
Five minutes with Google and no Apple-rosy glasses.
Most Linux libraries are built with C. Does that mean you have to use C to program Linux? Of course not.
So too with the existing Objective-C libraries. The language used to write a library is irrelevant; what matters is the language bindings the programmer uses to invoke the libraries.
From http://www.raywenderlich.com/74138/swift-language-faq:
So you can still use Objective-C. However, Apple seems to be encouraging you to use Swift for any new development, while not expecting you to go back and re-write all of your Objective-C code.
From www.archer-soft.com/en/blog/technology-swift-vs-acobjective-c-pros-and-cons:
Swift was created in order to replace Objective-C, however, Swift is capable of working alongside Objective-C while using Cocoa and Cocoa Touch frameworks.
The fact that Apple has to maintain internals using Objective-C does not conflict with the fact that they're pushing platform developers to use Swift. There are pieces of Apple's stack written in C, C++, and probably even other languages as well, seeing as the vast majority of their code base comes from open source.
Of course Apple hasn't said Objective-C is a dead end. There would be a revolt and a mass fleeing from the platform if they did that.
But they sure as hell aren't encouraging people to stay on Objective-C instead of moving to Swift.
Are you sure you're on the same internet as the rest of us? I've read several articles and summaries (including on Slashdot) that have made it clear Apple wants people to use Swift.
Oh, wait. Never mind. Apple person. You don't deal with the same reality as the rest of the world.
Yahoo is already dead, and just can't accept the fact.
Over a year ago, they pushed an unholy abortion of an email interface that takes over 2 MINUTES to load on a 6.5 megabit link.
Now they've pushed an interface for their main news page that doesn't even render or refresh properly with Iceweasel/Debian.
While other sites are developing slick HTML5 interfaces, Yahoo seems hell-bent on creating the most UNUSABLE interfaces to hit the web since the days of AOL.
Quite frankly, when they die, it will be "good riddance" to the eyesore that Yahoo has become.
Apple has made it clear their development future lies in Swift, not Objective-C.
That means you're choosing between a popular, well supported language and a dead end.
The choice should be obvious.
There's targetting a teen audience and then there's targetting an elementary school audience...
This kind of abuse is why the latest round of "anti-terrorism" legislation from the Conservative jackboots who currently run our country needs more oversight. Having one person in charge of the oversight is just rife with the potential for sweeping issues under the rug and failure to detect problems.
I firmly believe that a committee of at least three politicians and one "specialist" should be overseeing all of these Canadian privacy-related issues, regardless of "national security" issues -- one from each of the major parties. (The only reason I don't say four is May is a whackjob and there are no other Green Party members of parliament -- that woman isn't qualified to oversee lunch.)
The Abrams movies are action movie fluff. Nothing more, nothing less. The characters are "Star Trek" in name only, and an insult to every single Star Trek series or movie that came before them.
The first of Abrams movies, I thought "Well, it's just a start. They've got to get their legs under them."
But when Kirk lost the Enterprise and then gained it back in less than 10 minutes in the second movie, I shut it off. I've never watched it. I refuse to watch such an insulting piece of drek that thinks someone is going to be given a trillion dollar starship just because they asked after having had it taken away for breaking the law.
I presume there is going to be another Abrams movie soon enough. I won't bother watching that, either.
Watching the Abrams movies is like watching the first three "Star Wars" movies after having seen the original trilogy. It's painful. It's insulting. It's degrading. And it feels like it's marketed to pre-teens, not people who think.
Ah, yes, my ISP with over 25 years experience servicing hundreds of thousands of customers with over five million email addresses clearly doesn't know what they're doing.
It couldn't possibly be that the people behind the phishing attacks are custom-crafting the address chains in the fake "delivery failure" messages. Oh, no, it's clearly my ISP at fault because this is the only time this has happened in over 15 years of using them.
I sure hope you aren't responsible for securing anything more important than your home PC...
That same conversation has been around since since the first saboteurs threw their shoes into the gears of factory equipment.
The answer has never changed: society will evolve to a communist one because it has no choice if it's to avoid mass revolts and warfare.
You have only to look to the inner cities of North America to see the unrest and riots that have already started over trigger-issues such as a citizen being shot by police. Those riots aren't just over the deaths; they're an expression of people's frustration with "the system."
No matter what the DE, the people who use it always want it to be the default for their distro.
What is so damned hard about doing "apt-get install de-of-choice"?
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
