Comment Re:Q# is kinda cool (Score 1) 117
Gotta love it when language examples involve notations like |0
Looks like your last character quantum teleported off somewhere. I suspect the notation is meant to be |0>
Gotta love it when language examples involve notations like |0
Looks like your last character quantum teleported off somewhere. I suspect the notation is meant to be |0>
The only data they have is which numbers you are interacting with and when.
Not sure this is correct. End to end encryption is for individual chat windows. Group chatting can be read by the mothership.
Wrong Baker!
The ability to do anything you can think of, and actually making it happen are two separate things.
Writing a browser from scratch baking in whatever plugin you want would stop you from being limited by Quantum's API.
I'm afraid this is not going to happen.
That's why I said "in theory"
Reminds me of a joke I heard:
Q: What's the difference between theory and practice?
A: In theory they're the same, but in practice they're different.
The idea that the ZSK chain of authentication should be frequently rolled over is simply not going to happen.
I don't understand. It's the KSK that has a slow rollover which is what is being discussed in this article, and the ZSK with the faster rollover. I never said the KSK should never be changed, but at the same time, I didn't say it should be frequent.
Key Signing Key. DNSSEC is built on public key cryptography. You sign your zone with a Zone Signing Key ZSK, then sign the ZSK with your KSK, the public key part of which is available in your parent zone. The theory goes that you can roll over your ZSK frequently (and you should) without involving your parent zone.
I find that it's flying toasters more than bats that crash in Windows.
I agree, but Digikam, once you get past the fairly unintuitive UI, can emulate most workflows found in Picasa. The facial recognition is not great but apart from that I'm a very happy user, with 50,000 pictures.
The is crap written in EVERY language
Including English, it seems!
And you won't guess what happened next!
In this scenario, why couldn't I create a company "cc1984_ corp"of one employee: me? This company's business objective would be to keep me clothed, fed and generally in good shape. For Any services I render to anyone payment would not be to me directly, but to my company.
My salary would be minimum wage which I would donate to charity (because I'm so nice).
It is two words, but most people apply middle-out compression to make it one word.
There's a video of this on Horizon:
Trap full -- please empty.
