Embrace, extend, extinguish will never go away. It's everyone's mantra from Microsoft, to Apple, and even Google who have been so "pro open source". Check out my essay on how to combat this:
https://volocian.com/adopt-adapt-abandon/
I realize this may be a bit esoteric, but if one were truly trying to be as selfish as you suggest, wouldn't one want to consider societal benefit their very first consideration? If your entire business model is predicated on sucking resources out of others in order to amass them for yourself, you can't help but follow that logic to its conclusion, which is that you'll be left alone with a bunch of resources and nobody to help you with managing them. Death follows quickly. Basically, what all the world's major religions and philosophies (including both capitalism and socialism) boil down to is simply: what benefits us all benefits us as individuals. The other way around doesn't work no matter how you try to reason it. You're free to go ahead and believe that somehow you're making your own life better by robbing others (which is exactly what you're doing by trying to monetize someone else's work, ever), but simple math would disagree with that belief. Basically, if you're truly selfless, you have to put the needs of society above your own, and if you're truly selfish, you do the same, recognizing that you're a fragile human being and no matter how much money you can make, you cannot make it on your own. To think otherwise is ignorant of the most easily visible circumstance of your own situation: that you seem unable to even make a "profit" without the help of others.
Yes, I'm deliberately being insensitive as obviously emotion clouds judgement. Thanks for noticing.
This has nothing to do with non violent drug offenders being in jail as this man was violent. You rightly make a complaint about this fellow having been treated as nonviolent when he was in fact violent. Ok, but completely unrelated to the actual issue of putting nonviolent people behind bars. By arguing about this at all, you're trying to conflate one issue (nonviolent drug offenders in jail) with another (violent offenders not being treated harshly enough). They are separate issues. The fact that you try to equate one with the other is exactly what has led to this particular state of affairs (that is, that most of us agree that jailing a nonviolent drug offender is wrong). Ok, we get it, you believe people are sometimes mislabelled. Sure, that's an issue, but you're never going to fix it by arguing that the way to keep violent offenders off the street is by locking up people who are nonviolent. That's just silly.
And finally, since you brought it up so many darn times, what was the end result in your perfect playbook? Let's assume that this fellow had been under state watch, violated his parole, and instantly got sent to jail for 6 months. Now what? I would expect not much would be different if you really think about it. Maybe it wouldn't be your daughter, but somebody would still have gotten hurt in all likelihood. This man hurt your daughter because he was always going to hurt somebody, because he is a person who hurts people. When a person gets off for shoplifting and goes on to commit murder, you can't blame the justice system that let him go on the shoplifting charge. Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense.
No, I heard all of that. Personally I don't believe that retribution is valid in any case, but that's my moral preference. I also don't believe that prison either rehabilitates or deters, but that's just my opinion. And even you can't argue that as far as segregation for safety goes, the man who hurt your child got what he deserved.
If what you are saying is that he should have been in prison before the fact to prevent him from having hurt your daughter, that's a kind of pretzel logic I'm not going to even indulge.
My point was that your experience doesn't apply to the grandparent's post, which was a snide suggestion that a society which imprisons literally non-violent drug offenders isn't civilized. The only way your experience applies is to further demonstrate a lack of civilization in a society which considers a literally violent person non-violent.
You said yourself that this man had a history of violent felonies and was, in the case of your family's ordeal, violent. Terrible story, I'm very sorry to hear, but your anecdote in no way relates to a statement about non-violent drug offenders.
Unfortunately, this sort of confusion and pointless imagined correlation is exactly what has led lawmakers to feel justified in imprisoning, once again, NON-VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS (remember, that's very different from "violent child rapists").
Seriously, sympathy for your situation, but your outrage is obviously clouding your logic.
For pro audio we use JACK, so you wouldn't need pulseaudio there either. I do find it handy when switching between hdmi and onboard on my laptop, however.
I'm confused. You don't want to save your credit card information or browser passwords on a single device or site because they can be retrieved, but you like the idea of apple storing credentials that can be retrieved from any device on the planet. Also, good for locking your phone, but if you're also using encrypted storage you don't have much to worry about with PayPal having your credit card info., at least notnif you're using their app as its also pin or password secured and doesn't save your password - and that's on top of your general phone security.
Which is why my primary email address' password is unique and stronger thany banking password (my bank requires a six digit pin number because they use the same password for internet and phone banking. It's stupid).
Other than that, I use 3 different passwords of low, medium, and high entropy for almost every site unless it has some ludicrous password rule. A couple if the sites I've signed up for have required a mixture of capital and lowercase, no characters, and 11 characters or less, a pattern which matches exactly zero of my standard passwords. Why would one enforce mixing case (higher entropy) only to limit length (lower entropy)?
And that's why email recovery is awesome.
How about abolishing execution, period. If even one person is killed because of a wrongful conviction (which of course is realistically a very low number), then the state is no better than the murderers.
Absolutely. Which is offensive. No wonder people "hate cops". They're always there to enforce nickel and dime laws, but get your bicycle stolen and kiss it goodbye. The only thing they'll do in 90% of property theft cases is punch the serial number (if you wrote it down) of the stolen item into a database that pawn shops run through whenever an item is pawned. Every criminal knows this, so most of the time the items are never found. No investigation, no police work period. This goes for items as large and expensive as vehicles too. Even cars aren't found unless a plate gets run for an unrelated issue (speeding, abandonment, etc.). And yet, if a cop catches me pissing in the street, that's a worthwhile time waste for the entire justice system.
That's a copout (no pun intended). If you give police the location of your phone, it's probably less than an hour's worth of work for two of them to track it down and get it back. As long as there are two cops on duty, it's simply lazy to not track it down. They don't seem to have any issues with setting speed traps and handing out seatbelt tickets.
Well, this may be an interesting talking point, but really is a matter of attitude. Remember when Rob Ford admitted to smoking crack? I don't live in Toronto, but I applaud his honesty. The same goes for every other scenario on earth. If I cheat my wife, it's brought up, and I admit to it, I'll gain far more respect than if I deny, deny, deny.
Slashdot Mirror
Embrace, extend, extinguish will never go away. It's everyone's mantra from Microsoft, to Apple, and even Google who have been so "pro open source". Check out my essay on how to combat this: https://volocian.com/adopt-adapt-abandon/
"sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras" you're welcome :-)
Shameless plug, but I think we may be here to save the day over at http://www.volocian.com/dreams...
I realize this may be a bit esoteric, but if one were truly trying to be as selfish as you suggest, wouldn't one want to consider societal benefit their very first consideration? If your entire business model is predicated on sucking resources out of others in order to amass them for yourself, you can't help but follow that logic to its conclusion, which is that you'll be left alone with a bunch of resources and nobody to help you with managing them. Death follows quickly. Basically, what all the world's major religions and philosophies (including both capitalism and socialism) boil down to is simply: what benefits us all benefits us as individuals. The other way around doesn't work no matter how you try to reason it. You're free to go ahead and believe that somehow you're making your own life better by robbing others (which is exactly what you're doing by trying to monetize someone else's work, ever), but simple math would disagree with that belief. Basically, if you're truly selfless, you have to put the needs of society above your own, and if you're truly selfish, you do the same, recognizing that you're a fragile human being and no matter how much money you can make, you cannot make it on your own. To think otherwise is ignorant of the most easily visible circumstance of your own situation: that you seem unable to even make a "profit" without the help of others.
Yes, I'm deliberately being insensitive as obviously emotion clouds judgement. Thanks for noticing.
This has nothing to do with non violent drug offenders being in jail as this man was violent. You rightly make a complaint about this fellow having been treated as nonviolent when he was in fact violent. Ok, but completely unrelated to the actual issue of putting nonviolent people behind bars. By arguing about this at all, you're trying to conflate one issue (nonviolent drug offenders in jail) with another (violent offenders not being treated harshly enough). They are separate issues. The fact that you try to equate one with the other is exactly what has led to this particular state of affairs (that is, that most of us agree that jailing a nonviolent drug offender is wrong). Ok, we get it, you believe people are sometimes mislabelled. Sure, that's an issue, but you're never going to fix it by arguing that the way to keep violent offenders off the street is by locking up people who are nonviolent. That's just silly.
And finally, since you brought it up so many darn times, what was the end result in your perfect playbook? Let's assume that this fellow had been under state watch, violated his parole, and instantly got sent to jail for 6 months. Now what? I would expect not much would be different if you really think about it. Maybe it wouldn't be your daughter, but somebody would still have gotten hurt in all likelihood. This man hurt your daughter because he was always going to hurt somebody, because he is a person who hurts people. When a person gets off for shoplifting and goes on to commit murder, you can't blame the justice system that let him go on the shoplifting charge. Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense.
No, I heard all of that. Personally I don't believe that retribution is valid in any case, but that's my moral preference. I also don't believe that prison either rehabilitates or deters, but that's just my opinion. And even you can't argue that as far as segregation for safety goes, the man who hurt your child got what he deserved.
If what you are saying is that he should have been in prison before the fact to prevent him from having hurt your daughter, that's a kind of pretzel logic I'm not going to even indulge.
My point was that your experience doesn't apply to the grandparent's post, which was a snide suggestion that a society which imprisons literally non-violent drug offenders isn't civilized. The only way your experience applies is to further demonstrate a lack of civilization in a society which considers a literally violent person non-violent.
You said yourself that this man had a history of violent felonies and was, in the case of your family's ordeal, violent. Terrible story, I'm very sorry to hear, but your anecdote in no way relates to a statement about non-violent drug offenders. Unfortunately, this sort of confusion and pointless imagined correlation is exactly what has led lawmakers to feel justified in imprisoning, once again, NON-VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS (remember, that's very different from "violent child rapists"). Seriously, sympathy for your situation, but your outrage is obviously clouding your logic.
For pro audio we use JACK, so you wouldn't need pulseaudio there either. I do find it handy when switching between hdmi and onboard on my laptop, however.
If you loved sysv init scripts, writing a script to unmount all NFS mounts should be pretty easy.
Get well, friend.
I'm confused. You don't want to save your credit card information or browser passwords on a single device or site because they can be retrieved, but you like the idea of apple storing credentials that can be retrieved from any device on the planet. Also, good for locking your phone, but if you're also using encrypted storage you don't have much to worry about with PayPal having your credit card info., at least notnif you're using their app as its also pin or password secured and doesn't save your password - and that's on top of your general phone security.
Which is why my primary email address' password is unique and stronger thany banking password (my bank requires a six digit pin number because they use the same password for internet and phone banking. It's stupid). Other than that, I use 3 different passwords of low, medium, and high entropy for almost every site unless it has some ludicrous password rule. A couple if the sites I've signed up for have required a mixture of capital and lowercase, no characters, and 11 characters or less, a pattern which matches exactly zero of my standard passwords. Why would one enforce mixing case (higher entropy) only to limit length (lower entropy)? And that's why email recovery is awesome.
How about abolishing execution, period. If even one person is killed because of a wrongful conviction (which of course is realistically a very low number), then the state is no better than the murderers.
Absolutely. Which is offensive. No wonder people "hate cops". They're always there to enforce nickel and dime laws, but get your bicycle stolen and kiss it goodbye. The only thing they'll do in 90% of property theft cases is punch the serial number (if you wrote it down) of the stolen item into a database that pawn shops run through whenever an item is pawned. Every criminal knows this, so most of the time the items are never found. No investigation, no police work period. This goes for items as large and expensive as vehicles too. Even cars aren't found unless a plate gets run for an unrelated issue (speeding, abandonment, etc.). And yet, if a cop catches me pissing in the street, that's a worthwhile time waste for the entire justice system.
Absolutely. Which is a travesty in itself.
That's a copout (no pun intended). If you give police the location of your phone, it's probably less than an hour's worth of work for two of them to track it down and get it back. As long as there are two cops on duty, it's simply lazy to not track it down. They don't seem to have any issues with setting speed traps and handing out seatbelt tickets.
Or a CeleumTV.
Check out CeleumTV.
CeleumTV
Try CeleumTV. It comes with the Google Play services and a custom XBMC setup.
Try CeleumTV. It has a custom 1080p kernel and includes XBMC with hardware acceleration.
Again, CeleumTV
If you want one with built in, customized XBMC, check out CeleumTV
I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, and I get charged roaming if I go to another province. It sucks, and I hope we can pass similar legislation here.
Well, this may be an interesting talking point, but really is a matter of attitude. Remember when Rob Ford admitted to smoking crack? I don't live in Toronto, but I applaud his honesty. The same goes for every other scenario on earth. If I cheat my wife, it's brought up, and I admit to it, I'll gain far more respect than if I deny, deny, deny.