12 posts • joined 9 Mar 2008
No, dear denier. What it means is that the report is not concerned with finding a cause for the climate change, AGW or otherwise.
But since climate change is happening at an unprecedented rate, the report is listing the consequences and what could be done to mitigate it.
So, the code is as follows:
def climateChangeIsHappening = true
// def agwMainCauseOfRecentClimateChange = not important for this report
The art of AGW deniers is to ignore that even if the climate change is not caused by humans, as they claim, we still have to deal with it.
You should enable the option to have one scaling level for all displays (even if you have only one) to fix the rendering. Then logoff/logon and it's mostly ok. It took me one day to figure this.
Unsupported browsers: Internet Explorer 10 :)
You are a bit wrong. First of all, exit nodes communicate unencrypted only with the regular web. Accessing hidden services makes the communication encrypted end-to-end. And even for the regular web, you can use https to achieve the same result.
This will hide both the origin of the traffic and the content of the traffic from anyone listening. Depending on how many intermediate nodes there are between you and the exit node, it can be almost impossible for someone to trace you, under normal conditions.
However, if most of the entry, exit and intermediate nodes are owned by FBI/NSA etc., everything changes. And it seems they lease some cloud servers from time to time to do just that.
TL/DR: TOR is not secure when attacked by someone with a lot of resources.
"New->Text Document -> Save As x.txt.
ren x.txt x.exe
..oo-er, it tried to run it. Why? Windoze (2003 server) created it with FULL permissions."
No, it didn't. It created it with NO permissions. All permissions were inherited from the parent folder. This is an excellent feature Linux doesn't have. In my opionion, the default permission system on Unix/Linux is years behind Windows or even Netware
Let's see what happens on windows if you try to do that shit inside a directory without "Read and execute" permissions:
c:\Users\Vladimir\Documents\dgp\deploy\test>copy con test.exe
1 file(s) copied.
Access is denied.
Actually, this not a patent issue. HTC didn't just copy the technology. They actually used the same hardware component (the same microphone), that was based on a Nokia design:
See this picture showing the component:
Nokia had an NDA with ST electronics about this component, and ST seems to have failed to follow the terms of the NDA.
Re: 520, 720 & 920
Those are Nokia Lumia phone models. And the "little group" has only one OS version, Windows Phone 8.
I find a bit strange to see all the Nokia and Windows hate on this forum and the obvious anti-Microsoft bias of the authors (but I can't fault them for giving their readers what they want).
This is strange because Windows Phone has a larger market share in UK than in US (6.7% vs 4.1%), and I don't see such anti-MS/anti-Nokia articles on US tech sites. BTW, of those 6.7%, 5.6% are Nokia Lumia phones.
Also, the doubling of market share in one year (from 3.0% to 6.7% in UK), is hardly a reason to post tasteless stuff like "Smell of death putting them off, perhaps".
Yes, Nokia makes mistakes, one of them being not releasing the phones fast enough (in some countries the high-end models arrive about 6 months after the initial launch).
Yes, Microsoft makes mistakes, like not allowing the first generation devices to be upgraded to Windows 8.
But even with all those mistakes, the growth in market share is healthy. If the trend continues, by the end of this year Microsoft and Nokia could secure third place for smartphone OS and as a phone manufacturer. The other manufacturers, except Samsung and Apple, are only a few percent in front of Nokia, and dropping.
I'm a HTC Radar owner, and I will switch to a Lumia 920 at the end of my contract.
"surveys show *fear* of running out of juice is one of the key worries about having an EV int he first place"
That's why Renault will tow a car that has ran out of juice to the nearest charging station, for free. So at least with Renault, that's not an issue.
The main problem with electric cars, aside from fear, is that they are not cost effective. If the price is good most of us will learn to live with some of the other issues, like limited range and long charging time. But that's not the case.
For example Renault will rent you the battery, and the more kilometers you drive per year, the higher the rent will be. The electricity cost is neglijable, you might as well consider it free. But the cost for renting the battery is huge, so in the end the total cost of ownership will be the same, compared to a normal car. For example, if you drive 15000 miles/year, the battery rental cost will be 1000 pounds + VAT per year, if you rent the battery for 5 years.
In my country that renting cost is equivalent with a fossil fuel car with a fuel economy of about 5 liters/100km, if you consider the fuel cost to drive the same distance (15000 miles). Most small diesel cars have no trouble matching that, VW Polo diesel uses only 3.8 liters / 100 km.
And the car prices are similar to the fossil fuel versions only after you substract the government subsidies.
So, unless you really want one, or you bet on the fossil fuel prices doubling over the next few years, going electric is not a good deal in any way.
But at least we're almost there. And for those that say that big oil killed the electric car, they couldn't be more wrong. High prices killed the electric car. And good prices will bring it back to life.
See this for more details about Renault electric vehicles:
I don't get it...
Why is everyone complaining about the Lumia 800 "clown" colors?
It will also be available in black.
Or, as Gizmodo put it: "It's available in cyan, magenta, black, black, black, and black."
Even the picture from the Vodafone UK site shows the black version: http://www.vodafone.co.uk/brands/nokia/nokia-lumia-800/
"Apple's iOS will still be holding on to the top slot, accounting for 57.8 per cent of the tablets that ship in 2017. Android's share of tablet shipments will have grown to 33.4 per cent by then."
But Android tablets already have 27% in Q3 2011, and iOS is already down to 66.6% according to this article:
If that is correct, the 33.4% market share will most likely be reached by Android tablets in Q4 this year, not in 2017.
I don't know why everyone belives Opera has TLS 1.1 and 1.2 by default.
I just installed it, and both options were not enabled by default.
Reuse just happens. But you have to do it the right way.
Let's say you write some code. Then, you (or worse, somebody in same team) need to do something similar.
In my experience, the first temptation is not to make the existing code more reusable, by breaking it in components, and using only the required component, or by making it more abstract and parameterized.
The first temptation is to copy-paste a huge chunk of code, and then to modify it in a few places to make it compatible with the new requirements. Most often than not, this is what happens, especially with inexperienced programmers, that barely grasp the concepts of OOP.
And, for a short period, this strategy seems to work, and many young members of the team start to think that copy-paste is a good thing: you can do it fast, you don't affect the original piece of code, so the initial developer won't get mad for ruining his work, and you don't risk breaking other things.
But this will come back to haunt you when you need to fix a bug, only to find out that you need to fix it not only in one place, but in the 100 other places where it was copy-pasted.
So, yes you have to think every time you write a piece of code, how likely is that later on someone will need to write something similar. And if you find it likely to happen more than 3 or 4 times in the next 3 years, then you might as well plan for that.
Make the code reusable in the first place. Break it in many small classes or templates. Break the methods / functions in many small methods or functions, instead of a god method, 2000 lines long. Document it, comment it, and make clear its purpose, and that you feel that it should be reused, and in what way.
Someone, possibly you, will thank you later for your foresight.
However if you feel that a piece of code will most likely never be reused, you should document that as well. Then you can allow yourself the luxury of not caring about code reuse, and write the code faster.
You should still not create 2000 line code monsters, because you will have to debug or modify that code at some point, and it will be hell. Furthermore, in my experience, breaking the code into many small pieces and giving each a name, will make the code self documenting, to the extent that you will seldom need to comment the code.
And later on, if you are proved wrong and that code will need to be reused, it will be easier to reorganize the small pieces for reuse purposes.
And for god's sake, don't copy-paste. Or if you really have to, because the deadline is yesterday, document the copy-paste in both the source and the destination, and plan to refactor both code sections to something reusable as soon as possible.
Oh well, this comment is already to long. I should probably break it into multiple smaller, reusable comments :)
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...