Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
#1 is also available for Windows file shares since Windows 2003 SP1. Microsoft calls this feature "Access based enumeration".
More info: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc784710(WS.10).aspx
I also hate it when Settings are moved around in the Control Panel and Administrative Tools. If you often have to access several specific settings, it might be worth to learn the filename of the MMC-SnapIn or Control Panel applet you want to use. For example: Device Manager is "devmgmt.msc", Computer Management is "compmgmt.msc", Network Connections is "ncpa.cpl" - which I find way more convenient if you have to configre network settings in a corporate Environment with different Windows versions.
I don't know about the US, but in Europe PayPal's User Agreement says that it is "licensed as a Luxembourg credit institution". Also I don't really get where all the hate for PayPal comes from.
Yes I read a dozen times that they froze the account of SomethingAwful or some loud-mouthed bloggers under dubious circumstances, but for me it always worked just fine. Actually I really like PayPal because it allows me to send a seller money that is instantly credited to his account, without trust issues on either side or credit card processing for the seller.
I also like the security of going to PayPal's site so I can verify the payment, which is why I am quite sceptical of this API change. But apart from that I really don't see how PayPal is bad in any way for me as an ordinary customer.
Flaws in the Hypervisor might be exploited by the VMs: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1244
You need only check-out a few of their pages - most are pedestals from which to gloat about their Wikipedia penis, and yet these are the people IN CHARGE.
So those people take pride in their voluntary work for a good cause and as a result were elected by the community to have a few more responsibilities beyond just editing articles. I don't see how that is a bad thing at all.
This is diffs the dissembled version of the original against the update on the server, then does the opposite on the client. I couldn't help but think of this as similar to Gentoo's model
I don't think this is really a problem in this case. In the time even a slow computer, by today's standards, has downloaded a kilobyte over a WAN link it has easily performed millions of CPU operations on it. The same would be true for any kind of compression really. Since Bandwidth through your pipe is just orders of magnitudes slower than anything that happens within your machine, this added level of complexity is clearly more beneficial than a direct approach. That's why it makes sense to compress files on the server (or the client uploading it to the server), transfer them and decompress them on the client, even if the client is quite slow.
I'd rather improve the distribution model. Since packages are all signed, SSL and friends aren't needed for the transfer, nor does it need to come from a trusted authority. Bittorrent comes to mind. I'm quite disappointed that the apt-torrent project never went anywhere. It's clearly the solution.
With patches between minor versions at about 80kB (as stated in TFA), I don't think that a distribution using bittorrent would really be the way to go here. Add to this the fact that google has quite a lot of bandwidth at their disposal and I don't see this happening anytime soon.
I aggree however that it may be a good idea to transfer large amounts of linux packeges that way. But with a lot of smaller packages the protocol overhead of bittorrent might become a limiting factor regarding its usefulness.
Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures, would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs? I think not.
They think otherwise
I think that, as a government funded institution, it should be their mission to spread the art that they exhibit and do everything they can to spark people's interest in it. Yet art and education may not be their main concern if they continue to restrict access to these paintings as they do right now. And that, regardless of the copyright issue, is morally wrong - at least in my opinion. What is happening here ist that government money is used against the people instead of for them, which I find quite outrageous.