SMF is all XML, if you want to read the configuration or make your own, you can.
That's a huge problem, though: XML is a markup language, not a configuration language. Although it can be used to represent any data, it is not ideal for representing many kinds of data (in much the same sense that being Turing-complete is hardly sufficient to be a decent programming language).
YAML, s-expressions, traditional Unix line-oriented config filesâ"heck, even Windows-style
Some people, when they have a data representation problem, think, 'I know, I'll use XML'; now they have two problems.
Refusing to acknowledge what science teaches us about disease is illogical and yet you are holding yourself up as an arbiter of logic.
Who said anything about what science has discovered about disease? All science can say is, 'if you smoke, your risk of lung cancer is increased'; it cannot determine whether that risk is worthwhile.
I'd argue that the risk is worthwhile when it comes to cigars and pipes, and not when it comes to smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, jsut as the risk of eating grilled meat is well worth it.
The DNS system by nature has a single root, the trust chain doesn't necessarily have that.
The SPKI guys back in the 90s figured this stuff out really, really well. Ideally, one would have: a DNS trust chain indicating that b24e:6f99:2f6f:34d8:9c8a:c6da:daaf:e3bb:002e:2ba4:2622:4cf9:cd8b:14a5:71d8:5a9c:18dc:47a2:9a2d:2951:a26b:26fa:2165:85fc:7006:0d66:1c8e:a4f4:ea36:4d04:57a0:8ae4 speaks on behalf of owns example.net; an IP trust chain indicating that b24e:6f99:2f6f:34d8:9c8a:c6da:daaf:e3bb:002e:2ba4:2622:4cf9:cd8b:14a5:71d8:5a9c:18dc:47a2:9a2d:2951:a26b:26fa:2165:85fc:7006:0d66:1c8e:a4f4:ea36:4d04:57a0:8ae4 speaks on behalf of the owner of 192.0.2.7, and possibly certifications from other organisations (Better Business Bureau perhaps) that b24e:6f99:2f6f:34d8:9c8a:c6da:daaf:e3bb:002e:2ba4:2622:4cf9:cd8b:14a5:71d8:5a9c:18dc:47a2:9a2d:2951:a26b:26fa:2165:85fc:7006:0d66:1c8e:a4f4:ea36:4d04:57a0:8ae4 speaks on behalf of a decent dude; users' browsers might demand the first two and show more confidence for further certifications.
SPKI's contributions included a k-of-n standard and, more importantly, transitive authorisations. So once I am granted authorisations from
You can see how this might work with internet governance: each organisation would be responsible for the namespace it was assigned, and be easily able to segment that namespace however it wished. Anyone at any level could cross-certify; damage to the trust chains could be contained.
SPKI is, in every way save uptake, superior to XPKI.
So...why don't you write it? I'm sure the world would love it! Compared to a lot of other software, it's really not all that complex. Just remember to encrypt the backups...
I have glumly come to the conclusion that if I want something equivalent to or better than MacOS's Time Machine on Linux for doing time-based incremental backups, I'm going to have to write it myself, and it's going to have to rely on LVM's snapshotting mechanism to do a consistent backup until BTRFS is ready.
You might take a look at using rsync for incremental backups. I've been doing this and it works great.
Essentially, getting caught leaving cookies otherwise should be evidence of the attempt, and bill them.
So you want to enter your username and password every time you reload a page, every time you post a comment &c.? Or you're cool with URLs which look like 'http://www.example.com/page?sessid=37a1-fb6c-9372-11de' instead or 'http://foo:firstname.lastname@example.org/page' instead of 'http://www.example.com/page'?
Do you even know what cookies are, what they do or why they were added in the first place?
(defclass a () ((b
:accessor b :initform 1 :type (integer 0 100))))
Although it's up to your implementation whether or not to enforce the type declaration.
Of course, what would be darkly ironic would be a screw-with-crackers script with a security vulnerability...
You are sounding rather limited in your own grasp of world history - many enlightened countries of the modern world prohibit weapons, and none of of them have totalitarian governments.
That's both a paetitio principi and a non sequitur. It begs the question because it assumes that weapons bans are enlightened (and hence not totalitarian; it doesn't follow because by banning weapons those countries are by definition totalitarian.
Having a gun in a fight works if the fight is nearly fair. Two men with pistols each have a decent chance of winning a gunfight. We aren't talking about that here. We're talking about a civilian against soldiers, plural. Guns don't help there. Other weapons do.
Which is why the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about 'guns' and merely says 'arms,' which includes those other weapons. Yes, I think if someone wants to buy a wire-guided missile or a cruise missile or a howitzer or a fighter jet then he has a constitutional right to do so. And yeah, most folks wouldn't--but they could, which is what liberty is all about.
... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks