289 karma · joined November 11, 2016
First, its about discoverability - on many networks you can see in what channels someone is in by simply /whois'ing them - allowing you to find other channels you might be interested in.
Second, if you want to create your own channel - you will most likely choose a network where your target audience already is. Creating a channel there is usually easy - /join a channel that does not exist yet, and often register it with the services with /cs register.
Setting up your own IRC Network is not that hard - but you need a server you can run IRC on, pick one of the many IRCds, pick a services package (Atheme and Anope are the most popular). And then you need to administer that network. (Which often means NOT doing anything.)
Creating your own IRC Network can be fun, and you can learn a lot of interesting things. But it is also time consuming. Creating a channel on an existing network is usually 2 commands away.
A number in base $n$ is just $a*n^2+b*n^1+c$.
Because $n mod n-1 = 1$, you can replace every $n$ with $1$.
So $a*n^2+b*n^1+c mod n-1$ becomes $a+b+c mod n-1$
But nowadays - a background thread will search for the stuff that should appear in the UI, and adds that directly when it found something.
You can solve the problem by changing the mouse icon to the hourglass, blocking the UI for just enough time to not get any accidental clicks, and update it.
As side effect, every update now takes some time - so you have to minimize the number of updates.
Do the organizers know about the security vulnerability?
Where do they get the vulnerabilities from?
"Whose bread I eat, those song I sing."
Sorry, but how did you figure it out? Can we hide it better next time?
cout << "Hello World";
It looks like they did that just because they can.
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: star
Let's say, you flag a mail on GMail as spam. GMail's filters will learn: both the spam filter for your inbox as well as a shared filter. If the shared filter learned that all mails from that provider are junk, then gmail may not accept any more mails from that provider.
But the provider is interested in his ability to send mails to gmail customers - because his own customers demand it. So, a good provider would just kick out that rouge customer who sends junk.
And that's where the fun begins: A big provider can deliver spam, if it's only a small percentage of his usual volume (too big to fail). And not every provider is cooperative. And the process is slow - some filter has to be fed a large amount of junk, so it finally rejects a large portion of of the valid mail.
A better way is: Get your provider to send an abuse mail to the origin. In my experience, it's still a fight against windmills, but every bit helps.
* "something that is known to have happened" - Yep, 9/11 did happen. And some people say they KNOW that it was an inside job.
* "especially something for which proof exists" - job of the CIA is to exactly prevent such a thing, they did not.
* "or about which there is information" - come on. I won't link conspiracy theory websites here.
So, in the end, your definition does not contradict that someone calls the 9/11 conspiracy theory a "fact".
The first point is debatable - but then you could apply the same logic to WW1 or any other history event.
Therefore, I don't like your definition of fact.
set a puts
$a "Hello World"
The API change is communicated and approved by both parties.
You build the first thing.
Canary fails, because API has changed.
You change the other to match the new API.
Canary fails again, because it uses the most recent non-failed build.
???
Owner of the canary build is now shunned.
See https://www.w3.org/TR/secure-contexts/#is-origin-trustworthy
If you know you are constructing a Rectangle, then you use it's constructor. If you create a Square, you use that constructor.
But they are not inherited, and can have completely different semantics - accept different arguments or throw for for new reasons.
That having said, the Rectangle / Square example doesn't really work: Is `new Rectangle(42, 42)` a Square? (This brings us to factory methods...)
But yeah, the magic is: All code is now implicitly async (except native calls) - as if all code always had async in it's signature. Just - there is no need to now add this to the signature.
If you think about it - the feature may change significantly or be even removed - it makes sense to only support a preview features in one java version.
Providing backward compatibility for preview features is simply not intended.
The first question we have to ask is: How do we not like patents to be used?
> its impact on the state of American aviation was indisputably negative.
We don't want patents to be used in a way that deters further research and advancements in that field.
Can we determine if a way of use will do that in the future? Unfortunately, as we can't see into the future, we don't know.
So we use the next best thing: We try to find patterns that strongly suggest that someone is abusing a patent.
And the pattern that we found is: People who just buy patents (sometimes for just $1) and don't produce their own are more likely to abuse patents. And that's how we came to today's definition.
But for the past, we can answer the second question. And we should use this as definition if possible.
If enough users complain, they might change their policies. Ehh, wait, we talk about Verizon here.
Don't bother.
Now the site is broken for me.
We talk about two different data sets here: * The actual User data. * Data from third persons, including, but not limited to their e-mail address.
While a user can agree that their own data should be processed by a third party, the problem is that he cannot consent for other people.
And in my understanding (INAL), every part of the software where those third person information is transferred or processed needs to be part of that full assessment.
A limited API that does not give out any third persons data would have to somehow filter out all the information of all third partys.
OpenJDK is open source (GPL2 + classpath exception).
"Java" otoh is a trademark.