Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 34
This means if your laptop has nmap, burp suite, metasploit, or Ida pro etc. and you visit China with it
Visiting China with such tools on your laptop? Pretty stupid, unless you're going there to spend a lot of money.
This means if your laptop has nmap, burp suite, metasploit, or Ida pro etc. and you visit China with it
Visiting China with such tools on your laptop? Pretty stupid, unless you're going there to spend a lot of money.
Less mass beneath my feet? That depends very much on how you measure "beneath", right? I'd argue that if your load is being distributed into something, it's beneath you. If I'm standing on a mountain which is sufficiently sharply pointed, then almost the entire mountain might be engaged in supporting my weight — cue fat jokes. But anything it's standing on is going to be the same thing, so wouldn't that make it more mass "beneath" my feet?
Anyway, I RTFA (my geek card is in the mail, it should be back at the processing facility shortly) and the article is all gushily excited that "thereâ(TM)s far more crust underneath the mountains than there is in the oceans!" Wait, was this a surprise to anyone? Mountains happen when earth gets shoved up into the air. They're not pimples.
So in short, the article comes to completely the opposite conclusion of the truth: they say that "if you wanted the least amount of mass beneath your feet, youâ(TM)d climb up to the peak of the highest mountain" when in fact, there is more mass beneath your feet if you stand on a mountain than if you stand on the seabed or in a valley, because of all the mass that by definition can't be beneath your feet if you're standing at a lower altitude.
Tunneled down into the articles, http://git.neil.brown.name/?p=... has the patch. I'm building a system with 4.0.4 right now so this was material to me
if you had any sense at all for the most part you wouldn't have even needed an antivirus especially back then even though it was the wild west and all...
You're a nutter, you are. AVP was actually catching virii for me, so I know it was valuable. Haven't had a valid detection in years, but I still run antivirus... because now I have multicore and SSD and the penalty is low.
I remember when AVP came out, it was both the fastest and best NT antivirus around.
Then they made a few "updates" and we started calling it "a v poo" (IT nerds are known for their maturity) because it would choke your system like a punk.
It's sad that they're still not capable of making an antivirus product that doesn't turn your awesomesauce PC into a turd.
I bought it on launch for the 360 as well and their horrible failure of execution ruined it for me much of the time. I'll wait until the PC version hits the bargain bin before I screw with them again.
They must surely mean that the parts of the system which are not the Linux kernel take up only 10kB. The kernel has crypto services in.
afaik noscript is still the only blocker that allows selective enabling of scripts from particular domains
Adblock winds up blocking a lot of scripts, but yes, I use noscript as well since that's its primary purpose.
A 200 pound* bicycle causes one ten-thousandth of the wear that a 2000 pound car causes, which means cyclists' contribution to road wear would likely be too small to collect.
But that's almost the same conversion factor as between commercial trucks and cars. By the same token, shouldn't the road taxes be divided up by who is actually doing the damage, with the commercial trucks paying vastly more?
If you think Pale moon has greater security than firefox you are a drooler.
It has a better adblock than regular firefox, which is all I meant. Less chance of malware hitting your system.
It was solved in the 80s and then crapped on in the 90s in the name of making ever-cheaper disposable printers for the purpose of selling million-dollar ink cartridges and print heads.
Why would we need another firefox-based browser designed for security? I thought that's what pale moon was. In the bargain you get 64-bit builds.
Their initial page load is only about ten times as long as Google. I can't imagine why I've never heard of them before, and expect to never hear of them again.
You pay US income tax, right?
As little as possible, and only because men with guns will come to incarcerate you if you don't give them more money to hire more men with guns. Go back and re-read my comment until enlightenment reaches you.
Is that still true in Nvidia's case? I originally bought an Nvidia card because of the supposed Linux-friendliness, but it's been giving me trouble.
Sorry to hear that, try another driver, an older one if necessary. I have a multitude of nVidia cards, and they all work right if you pin down the right driver. I have 6150 LE onboard in nForce-chipset boards, I have a Quadro 295 NVS in an HP C2D I just bought, might upgrade it to a C2Q for $50, really slick low-power setup there with support for CUDA 6.5 anyway, not too bad. 240GT, 450GTS OC, 750 Ti. Seriously all working great under Linux, but seriously none of them using the suggested driver.
I keep hearing stories about nVidia driver being hard to install manually but I'm doing Linux From Scratch right now (I'm currently starting over after a successful LFS 7.7 build now that I'm educated, and combining CLFS 3 and LFS 7.7 along with building with GCC 5.1 and multilib glibc 2.21, libressl, compiz...) and I've found that the nVidia driver still installs flawlessly on LFS just like it did on say Slack back when the nvidia driver was new. But like I said, you have to go driver hunting. For example the driver which comes with CUDA 6.5 won't build with a modern kernel and/or toolchain, so I had to hunt up a different driver (340.76) to support my NVS 295. And when I got my spanking new 240GT, it wasn't even officially supported by the driver yet but being 3/4 of a 250GTS it did actually work... as long as I installed the next-to-newest driver, and not the very newest one. Then another version or two later they added explicit support for my card.
On the other hand, I tend to try an ATI card every two or three GPUs, and I am always pissed off. I bought a gateway netbook with R690M chipset and that still isn't properly supported several years later. fglrx never supported it (said it was "too old") and radeon still trashes the display when used.
If you want proper Linux support, you're better off with nVidia. If you want open-source driver support for a moderately new card, you may be better off with ATI, but it depends on the specific GPU. If you want open-source driver support for a very new card, that's pretty much just Intel anyway.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.