why anybody anywhere would ever invest in proprietary crypto software.
People forced by their customers to buy off of this list (i.e. people who sell to the federal government):
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST...
Sure there are a couple F/OSS groups that paid the pretty significant cost to get a certificate. But not that many, especially when it comes to networking products.
... you should be able to install whatever version of software you want on your phone.
The *only* think I want from a phone is a safe enough firmware bootloader that if someone installs something that doesn't work on a device, they can un-brick it and replace it with something that works.
That would handle the specific case of "rollbacks" this article want; as well as the more general case of deleting Windows Phone and putting Android on the otherwise nice hardware.
In Japan, MtGox is not liable because bitcoins aren't money (i.e. nothing real was lost).
Couldn't one say the same about most any fiat currency (backed by nothing but the whims of some private company (the Federal Reserve Bank) - not unlike how WoW gold is backed by nothing but the whims of Bilzzard)? And also the same about any currency with lenders that get to do fractional reserve banking (they essentially get to make money on whims by loaning out more than they have)?
Seems Bitcoins aren't that different than Zimbabwe Dollars.
black boxes are almost always recovered
Except when planes crash?
Seems the 9/11 planes' were lost too. http://911research.wtc7.net/pl...
they'd remove the blacklist completely --- and all the driver vendors would quickly fix the bugs (if there even are any).
As it is, no-one fixes the drivers because there aren't that many test cases showing the hypothetical bugs. And a good way to get those test cases would be with a frequently used app like Chromium.
By keeping the blacklist, it means those bugs they think are there will likely never be found and fixed.
But if you're in public, assume you're taped. Chances are you already are, and you just don't realize it.
This guy does an incredible performance art piece based on that idea. He walks around with a really obvious camera taking videos of people's reactions to him recording them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Funny how with google glass - that'll be everyone.
Try to get the attention of the guys running the simulation (through prayer, sacrifice, whatever).
If it works - and they enter their debuggers to communicate back - then yup - probably a simulation.
It probably just works for a while, though, since their management will probably enact policies not to flood the worlds too often.
Why'd someone mod this as troll?
I use it; and it works great.
Still no alternative gives virtual screen bigger than real screen (scroll when mouse hits edge). Or windows occupying more than one desktop (e.g. top left part in "1", bottom right in "4").
FVWM2 does both: your world consists of multiple disjoint virtual desktops (windows can be present in multiples of them) each of which is larger than the screen. In the latter case, you can also stick windows so that they pan around with you.
But in a way that feels broken compared to TVTWM. With FVWM2 it seems you need to choose which corner of the window in that example you want to see. With TVTWM you can move the view so it's centered on that window spanning multiple desktops.
"Still no alternative gives virtual screen bigger than real screen (scroll when mouse hits edge)."
Kinda. tvtwm had it integrated nicely and cleanly so it was easy to scroll to where you want. Using X itself I get too many unintentional scrolls.
My guess is no, afterall, it's Wayland! If a feature isn't used by a majority of gamers and movie watchers it shouldn't be there. Right?
Not sure if I want to laugh or cry.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
