At work I have to use a mac, it's a PITA to manage multiple non fullscreen windows on it. There is also a fair amount of screen estate lost per window.
Same with Windows, and Linux as they just copy Windows/Mac GUIs and never bother to finish them off. The problem is Raise-on-click, means you can USE overlapping windows, and drag and drop breaks. My theory is all GUIs are fundamentally stuck in the year they were first designed, so 1983 or so for Windows/Mac. Full screen, almost single tasking. RISC OS, being designed in 1986, is better, as a GUI.
What nonsense. In a free market economy, you vote every time you voluntarily accept an offer. Not voting for a corporation, a vote that costs you your own money, is a vote against it, because corporations die by default. If ever people stop accepting new offers, the corporation will die. They can't force you to accept an offer or to pay for an offer accepted by someone else.
With a government -- or a corporation supported by crony capitalism, which is just more government -- a program doesn't have to convince the payers that it's worth paying for. It just has to convince those with the power to take money from others by force to do so and give them some of it.
Incorrect. The libertarian government ideal is that the government's main purpose (and some would say sole purpose) should be to protect people against such occurrences. So there is most definitely a mechanism to protect people against aggression from those with more power; in fact, libertarianism is built on the principle which underlies it.
Why Iran? Surely Russia is a bigger suspect, but right now, my biggest suspect would be the NSA/CIA, the timing of the Syrian escalation is just too perfect.
In the middle east Iran* probably has the greatest geopolitical reach of any country within the region. Through Hezbollah they have an enormous impact on Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and even Israel. If the al-Assad regime falls Iran has the most to lose as suddenly it would become far more difficult, logistically and otherwise, to provide support to its groups in the Levant.
This explains why Iran is threatening action if the US bombs Syria, for example.
The Putin regime has certainly shown itself capable of significant international "hijinx" (such as assassination, vote rigging, etc.) but overall this doesn't fit their MO.
(*: note that when I say "Iran" here I am talking about the current Iranian regime, very much not the Iranian people.)
Dusting off my tin foil hat, I would go with Israel in collusion with the NSA/CIA. They have the most to gain by turning the media against Syria and the technical capabilities as proven with their involvement in stuxnet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
You think that Israel wants a war with Syria? Syria could easily turn those chemical weapons across its border. I think Isreal is probably one of the big factors causing US restraint right now.
But my tin-foil hat hasn't been working very well lately so the government radio signals may be blocking me from seeing something.
Things are enough of a powder-key economically this sort of thing to get out-of-hand in a big way.
China and America are co-dependent but at cyber-cold-war. Russia just recently gave the middle-finger to the U.S. with Snowden and we refused to meet with each other. The two primary powers that emerged after the last world war are no longer at the top so there is an open gap for who's next: the U.S. who no one wanted to mess with is overstretched, underfunded, and there is no better president to have at the helm if you want a war with the U.S. than one who has not achieved much militarily other than social reform and withdrawal, is on the edge of economic shambles due to decades of overspending much more than the stock market and media would lead you to believe, and whose party's voting constituents aren't in favor of a war, and Russia, who turned into a mafia-run state with former KGB at the helm that are unable to elicit much nationalism- much less a military power it used to be, doing the equivalent of selling its military assets on ebay for years.
Mass executions from chemical attack or otherwise are not the reason we are getting involved. This is a power struggle. Some big players (Clinton comes to mind) in U.S. Democratic party are set on cleaning up the Iran/Syria/Lebanon area, and Republicans are always up for a war. But, I'm afraid they will get more than they bargained for.
Why is Russia a bigger suspect? A study of foreign policy and defence would appear to suggest that Iran perceives that it is under threat of invasion from America.
If I seriously believed I was under actual threat of invasion from the US, I am not sure I would piss away my resources getting monkeys to deface a brochure.
Why do you suspect this is sanctioned by Russia? What would they have to gain from pestering a couple media companies, especially at the risk of losing their business? What is your logic here?
Even with Patent trolls and week patents, patents still allow companies to license innovative technology rather than hide it away for fear of copying (ala qualcomm)
Patents are a good idea, it's the current implementation that sucks
Well if you implement OAuth 2 properly, you'll prevent session fixation and hijacking attacks, and with https you will also prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.
The hueniverse guy was one of the people drafting the standard and as far as I can tell he laments that the providers can return a "bearer token" instead of a "mac token". That means the token is sent on every request to the provider, and without https it can be intercepted. But with https everything is fine!
OAuth 1.0 didn't rely on https to prevent MITM attacks an instead used the "mac token" to sign each request to the provider, along with an increasing timestamp/nonce to prevent replay attacks.
Hurd has been in development since 1990, Tanenbaum–Torvalds was 92. The shipping and loading of drivers separately from the kernel was a micro-kernel advantage and Linux being able to do the same is a move towards micro-kernel features in Linux (fuse and cuse being others).
In MINIX, afaik, you ship some drivers with the kernel in the same file. But those drivers runs in user space and separate from each other. The issue is not related with shipping.
IMO, loading the drivers at runtime is the easiest part of microkernels. It is really very very very tiny step. There are a lot more things to do, like doing IPC between operating system components, managing memory, scheduling, protection of the system & driver process running in the user space.
Finally, loadable kernel modules does not give you any security and reliability. Those modules still share the same address space with the kernel and each other.
At work I have to use a mac, it's a PITA to manage multiple non fullscreen windows on it. There is also a fair amount of screen estate lost per window.