ibotty

37 ms·

451.
by ibotty 14y ago
and how should that help? if you can read ram you can for sure read the executable file.
452.
by ibotty 14y ago
that was good!
453.
by ibotty 14y ago
just as a data point: as google, wolfram alpha (a mathematica "frontend") interprets it as (6/2)*(1+2). https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6÷2(1+2)&dataset= (and even with a variable juxtapositioned it's interpreted like that.) but
454.
by ibotty 14y ago
that's just not right. see how many port activated upstart starting scripts there were before systemd entered the scene. there is the difference as well, that mir has no solid reasoning (or its reasoning gets debunked shortly afterwards).
455.
by ibotty 14y ago
kwin will be its own wayland compositor, gnome's mutter will be its own compositor. why didn't canonical create unity as its own wayland compositor? (in other words: criticizing weston is a strawman)
456.
by ibotty 14y ago
something was said about it in irc a few days ago. i am not competent enough to paraphrase the reason. so here is the quote from http://pastebin.com/KjRm3be1 00:15 <Prf_Jakob> RAOF: why do you guys want server-allocated buffers? 0
457.
by ibotty 14y ago
this post is uninformed. first, a cache should never slow you down. old obscure settings can. and these can be in your old firefox profile as well. second, the usecase of many open tabs is better in firefox. there are studies out there that
458.
by ibotty 14y ago
you cannot compare this. for b2g apps the browser is the os. so you will only be able to provide a different shell to the browser if you so desire. firefox os is not going to be the something you can extend in any way. that's a design goal.
459.
by ibotty 14y ago
a cve is not worth that much. (nothing?)
460.
by ibotty 14y ago
there is conceptionally no support for functionality akin to noscript (as in the firefox addon, not the chromium plugin with less functionality), request policy, etc. even adblock works better in firefox. allowing these plugins is a decisio
461.
by ibotty 14y ago
i don't read any page about ruby. why do you read everything about haskell?
462.
by ibotty 14y ago
no state in haskell? not in my haskell. state is usually made explicit, yes. there is a state monad because of a reason...
463.
by ibotty 14y ago
well i believed that they are not ordered. (which they are not in some languages)
464.
by ibotty 14y ago
that blog post is from 2011. just so you know...
465.
by ibotty 14y ago
of course you can compare them (4 states: before, after, same, overlapping). you cannot put them into an order. that's something different.
466.
by ibotty 14y ago
the important part missing in my example is the 'vice versa'. the canonical example is: > sledge() { tr ab ba < $1 | sponge $1 } then, you might undo a change you already -p added. more convincing might be (using gnu sed): > sle
467.
by ibotty 14y ago
as i said in my other comment. that will only work for idempotent things: if you like to change, say, ' to ", the workflow in the article works, but git add -p won't.
468.
by ibotty 14y ago
when i have an idempotent sledgehammer (i.e. i can apply it twice and get the same result) i usually just git add -p everything that is ok. git diff will only show you the differences against the index, so this works as well.
469.
by ibotty 14y ago
not unless they accepted code from somebody else w/o a copyright assignment. they accepted code from many persons. i don't think everyone works for them.
470.
by ibotty 14y ago
you are of course right, that that would work. i was wondering more whether it is possible to structure the io monad (using algebras as in data types a la carte) or as you did here while _preserving backwards compatability_. right now io is
471.
by ibotty 14y ago
hi dons, that is a nice link that i will check out. (i just read their data types a la carte because of a recommendation by you on stack overflow afair just last week.) i was wondering whether it is possible to restructure the io monad into
472.
by ibotty 14y ago
see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5193368 for another submission.
473.
by ibotty 14y ago
see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5192990 for a different submission.
474.
by ibotty 14y ago
ah. the good old 'programmable semicolon' explanation. that is a good starting point, yes. (that's only a comment to make looking for these explanations easier.)
475.
by ibotty 14y ago
> Intel should provide the main code for UEFI i am not sure what "main code" is supposed to mean (i am no native speaker). but there is a reference implementation by intel and according to matthew garret most real-world implementations
476.
by ibotty 14y ago
that's a figure of speech.
477.
by ibotty 14y ago
maybe, just maybe, that environment is deeply flawed if it does not allow to run an external binary (but allows to run arbitrary code in libraries). your other point is also not that convincing. smallish binaries usually have a very clear a
478.
by ibotty 14y ago
i don't know. why should i trust clef? the google two-factor authentication can be run on your own server. can clef be run w/o clef? i don't think so.
479.
Red Cat, Green Chair, Blue Square: A Security Experiment(lauren.vortex.com)
1 points by ibotty 14y ago|0 comments
480.
by ibotty 14y ago
a title straight from puberty, and kind of sexist. partly weinre's fault though. they even tell you to interpret weinre as penis right in the first sentence. very useful article nevertheless.

More ›