I think you accidentally a word there.
As I mentioned, it didn't make sense, but at least it is supposedly straight from the people who made it.
98 and ME never mattered to "home users", but NT did? What planet were you on in the late 90s and early 00s?
The Windows Team did once make an announcement as to why it is 7, it makes about as much sense as your reasoning, but at least it is straight from the people who made it: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
1. Windows 1.x
2. Windows 2.x
3. Windows 3.x, NT 3.x
4. Windows 9x/ME, Windows NT 4.x
5. Windows 2000 (NT 5.0), Windows XP (NT 5.1)
6. Windows Vista (NT 6.0)
7. Windows 7 (NT 6.1)
You missed a couple of NT releases, here is the complete list:
3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000, XP/2003, Vista/2008, 7/2008R2, 8/2012
I can't blame you for missing 3.51, although it was a separate release from 3.5. I also can't blame you for completely dismissing the existence of Vista, I know I would like to.
I read about this yesterday on Ars. In the second-to-last paragraph, they talk about how Bonobos are well within the standard deviation for chimps, so genetically speaking, they should be the same species. I believe they were even once considered to be the same species, but were separated due to the size and behavior differences. In light of this new evidence, I believe it may cause them to be considered a "sub-species", much like dogs are to wolves.
I have only seen bits and pieces as this story came up so I'm curious, why were they allowed to license the spectrum in the first place and why was the space so "cheap" if it is so important that it not be used in the way they intended? Was it licensed for a particular use and they wanted to use it in a different way?
Actually, dropbox only syncs changed blocks of files, and truecrypt volumes use a block cipher, so the entire volume isn't resynced every time, just changes. One caveat, is that you need to turn off truecrypt's default setting to not change the modify timestamp of the file or dropbox won't know that a change was made. So it actually does work pretty well for truecrypt, as long as you are only making changes on one machine at a time.
The discs are still dual-layer DVDs, but the new "format" is a different partition scheme that opens up an extra gig of space for game data, at the expense of space that was dedicated for some other purpose. That seems like it should be a pretty minor change, so the rest of the update probably slips in other changes such as DRM.
The theory on why this is requiring a hardware replacement for some users is that this forces a flash of the dvd drive firmware. Some revisions have a dvd drive that is incapable of being flashed, so the firmware may be causing those revisions to be unable to read disks.
"Lied" is the correct word, even if it was not done with malicious intent. I am a user of Dropbox, and from the start realized the claim that nobody can access my files without the password was incorrect or at least poorly worded. For one, the client does not appear to store the user's password. Secondly, you can access the files via a web interface and can share files publicly or with other Dropbox users. Lastly, it would be impossible to perform deduplication if each user's data was encrypted separately. Sure, there may be policies and separation of information preventing employees from accessing files, but there has to be a single key in order for that infrastructure to work. The bottom line is, if you are storing sensitive data, make sure it is encrypted locally first. Dropbox synchronizes only changed blocks, so Truecrypt volumes work well. You do have to disable the security feature that prevents the file system from updating the modification timestamp, though.
It really depends on the "unrar" that you are comparing it to and how much you care about using open software.
GNA unrar is based off of an old version of RARLAB unrar, and does not support RARv3. It is GPL licensed.
RARLAB unrar, while the source is provided, has restrictions preventing it from being considered "open". One of these restrictions is that it cannot be studied to recreate the RAR compression algorithm.
Since this new implementation is open, the code could be studied to make an open source application to create RAR files, instead of just extract them. This is not allowed with the unrar source.
Note: Some of the above info was sourced from Wikipedia.
I did not word it very well. What I meant was that Dropbox only synchronizes changed blocks of a file, instead copying the entire file every time there is a change. Since Truecrypt uses a block cipher (XTS is the mode of operation), Dropbox is able to synchronize changes to the Truecrypt volume very quickly.
FiOS offers TV in addition to internet access. AT&T is one of the larger DSL providers in my area, and they offer TV with their UVerse service. Many other DSL providers have close partnerships with Satellite TV companies to provide bundles as well.
The files are encrypted, but Dropbox holds the key. This is how you can access the files through the website and share folders directly with other Dropbox users. It means that your files are susceptible to intrusion, so encrypt anything secret yourself before sending to Dropbox. Truecrypt volumes do work in Dropbox because it uses a block cipher(only changed blocks are synced, not the whole volume), but you do need to disable the option to not update modification timestamp in order for syncing to work. KeePass 2.x encrypted databases also work well, unfortunately KeePassX does not support writing to KeePass 2.x databases as of now.
On topic, the headline and summary are blowing this way out of proportion. Dropship fakes the hashing algorithm to make Dropbox think you have a file that you don't. Dropbox already supports both public links for files and folders, and can also privately share folders between accounts. I don't know of any legitimate purpose for Dropship that isn't covered by built-in features.
That is why we need fast breeder reactors. These use far less fuel and have much less waste. We do need to find a better cooling solution, I agree there.
Where would you propose to keep the phone instead? Shirt pocket? If its a choice between an extremely small variation in bone density of my hips or the thing sitting right next to my heart, I think I would pick the hip every time, even if there is no evidence that I've seen that it will affect your heart.
Also, perhaps the reason geeks jump in defensively is because most of these articles sensationalize the issue. As another poster pointed out, on average the BMD of the phone wearing side was 0.3% lower than the non-phone wearing side and the BMC 1.3% lower. This is a minute difference, especially considering that normally you would expect to find a difference between the two sides. "May Rot Your Bones" is vastly overstating the implications of this study.