Exactly. This guy lives in some sort of bizarro world Rubyist bubble. Sure, there is probably some guy's toy project to use Ruby in some sort of faux embedded environment, but that hardly matches what is done by the actual people writing the software.
IP address != person
Maybe in less than 1% of cases. All the rest of the time, the only one using the IP address is the person who pays for the internet access.
So it's reasonable anonymous if you consider your identity.
It's only reasonable if you think shoving your head in the sand gives you reasonably anonymity.
Their product was only "better" because their competitors at the time only had crap products. Not to mention that smartphones were a tiny niche product during the heyday of the BlackBerry. The global sales of smartphones during that time was about 1/20th of what they are now. It's easy to be the biggest fish when the pond is small.
There are plenty of better languages to learn over Ruby if people need to learn the "basics of the industry". Ruby is only marginally more popular than moribund languages like Delphi.
Ruby needs all the help it can get. 19 years later and it's only marginally more popular than Delphi. And that language has been moribund for around a decade.
I've done C# programming for 6 years and have never had any issues finding documentation and examples from MSDN. Do you have a specific example of what you have been unable to find documentation on?
But what are you going to offer to sweeten the deal?
The sad part is the submission had it spelled correctly. "Creato" was all timothy.
The "Name 2" was to "That's not to mention that a lot of people do like Gnome3, but those who don't tend to not acknowledge that they exist." It wasn't saying to Name 2 other DEs.
WGL and AGL are the Windows and Apple (respectively) are the glue APIs that allow you to setup and work with an OpenGL context and surfaces.
There is no such thing as "AppleGL". There is AppKit which contains classes to set up the OpenGL contexts and surfaces and GLKit for constructing textures, etc.
And how exactly are you going to have more sway than a couple of multi-billion dollar conglomerates?
Unless they are developing on the target tablet then it is...
Unless who is developing on the tablet? And how is one going to actually develop on the tablet? It's basically a fixed function device that only runs a single application. Furthermore, the act of "developing on the target tablet" does not fall under GNOME's mark's goods and services.
Your initial post in this thread exposed the fact that you don't know what the fuck a hash is, and thus don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
That's weird. My initial post nor the post I responded to said anything about hashes. My initial post was responding to someone talking about using a dictionary attack to get someone's password. I presume you falsely think my "initial post" was the one in response to AC-x which it wasn't. I also very much do know what a hash is. You and him seem to have a reading comprehension problem since you failed to understand my post. The point of my post was to say that, yes, having a password hash which you can use to try to recreate the original password does defeat what I stated, but that is tautological. If you can do an end run around the authentication protections it is no different than, as I said in an analogy, to having someone's PIN to their phone. I never once stated that having a hash was the same as having a plaintext password nor was their any such implication. Him stating that I believed the two were the same is basically a false presumption on his part by failing to understand my analogy.
You should have simply stopped posting, but here you are, digging deeper and deeper, committing more and more errors. You couldn't even quote a post properly.
I only messed up a quote once out of more than a dozen posts. Yeah, I totally don't know how to quote properly. Oh wait, I do.
Do you have an actual argument or just stupid ad homs like AC-x?
I would mod you up if I had points. I'm glad some people actually bothered to read and comprehend the context of my posts. Thank you!
At this point I will simply give up because I can't win when being bombarded by all these people twisting my words and taking me out of context.
Maybe you should read the book I mentioned.
And that changes the fact that you redefined dictionary attack how?
You keep trying to defend a point beyond exhaustion.
Yes, because I was not wrong. Dictionary attacks are still dictionary attacks even if the attacker does not have password hashes. A dictionary attack simply means that the attacker has a list of dictionary words that can be used to try to guess the user's password. Nothing more.
Lay off on the aspergers.
Don't have it. Nice ad hom, though.