In a "fair" world it would be "GNU/Linux" - "Linux" is the kernel, GNU provides other necessary "operating system" functions.
I've taught an "intro to Linux class" a couple times and can say that most textbooks only mention the GNU project in passing (if at all - in the beginning "history" type chapter) - so from that perspective everyone knows when you say "Linux" you are referring to an operating system (if they know what an OS is)
my personal preference is to talk about "distributions" (Ubuntu/Red Hat/whatever) but don't mention GNU unless I'm in a classroom setting (and then more to drive home the technical difference between "kernel" and "operating system").
I used "Revolution OS" to fill up some class time - if you are curious (and didn't live through it). In the documentary Bill Gates is the "bad guy", Stallman the crusader/fanatic, and Linus the practical applier of knowledge.
with all of that said - my official answer to the question is "no one cares"
to point out the obvious. Whatever the problem was, it wasn't because of "Net Neutrality" legislation. Or if Comcast weighs more than a duck - then Net Neutrality matters!
... so the smaller and quicker are eating the bigger and slower...
I'll point out that Benjamin Franklin (the guy on the $100 bill) made a very good living as a publisher back in the day. The point? As a writer/publisher looking to make a living he needed to know his audience and publish what people wanted to read/were willing to pay for (e.g. people loved almanac's so he created/published "poor richard's almanac"). I'll also point out that he never got much bigger than a 1 man operation
the problem's facing local news today aren't much different than in Franklin's time. You still need to find an audience and publish material in which they are interested. It is safe to say, that people are always interested in a couple things - 1.) themselves, 2.) their neighbors - so if you are a local news outlet you should focus on what large national publications can't cover - i.e. local people/government and their stories (lots of pictures, spell their names correctly)
for what it is worth (I live in southwestern Ohio) - close to half of our "big" local paper is syndicated news (stories from the NY Times and the WSJ a day later, the USA Today). but there are still numerous "community" papers, with close to 100% local content
"For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author's identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author's life plus 70 years)."
The U.S. Constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to establish a patent office, and copyright law. (Article I Section 8. Clause 8 ) -"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
so from a conceptual standpoint, if you write something and never publish it (at least in the United States) it is still covered by copyright during your lifetime no matter what you do. It is not possible for an individual to place something in the public domain - but you can give away your work if you like (conceptually the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" - maybe?)
It is important to remember that there are no "copyright police" enforcing copyright law en masse. If you create something (e.g. novel, song, software) and it is covered by copyright - it is your responsibility to protect your copyright. A very good way of proving that you created something is to register a copyright (for example in the United States) - then if someone steals your work, you can whip out your registration and prove you created it
while I'm bloviating - from an academic standpoint there is an obvious difference between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement." If I take a play by William Shakespeare, change the title and slap my name on it, then present it as my own original work - I have committed plagiarism, but not copyright infringement (since Willie's been dead for 400 years and all of his works are in the public domain)
of course the organization against legalizing sports gambling nationwide (in the United States) tends to come from casino's and other gambling institutions - so obviously just because people are in favor of something doesn't mean it is going to happen...
the catch 22 problem Microsoft faced after they missed/messed up mobile was the "Apps gap"
e.g. no one wanted to write apps for Microsoft's mobile OS because there wasn't a big enough user base to make it worthwhile, no users wanted a Microsoft mobile device because there weren't any apps...
which really illustrates the fact that users want to do "something" with their device (you know "use" the hardware), and the vast majority don't feel strongly about the Operating System
so the long held tradition of questions in the post title being obvious - "yes" the world needs additional mobile operating systems. then the question is "can they get a sizable market share from Android and/or Apple?" probably not.
eventually something will replace the smart phone type device and disrupt the computing industry. Of course I have no idea what that will be...
if you are old enough to remember the 1990's - the same type question back then was some version of "does the world need operating systems other than Windows" - 20+ years later the question is "can Windows stay relevant"
the short answer is that for some being first to have a new product is important, and worth the additional cost. Add in the "Apple" brand and I'm sure the $1,000 iPhone will sell just fine.
the problem is that "value" is almost always subjective. Is $1,000 "too much" for a cell phone? maybe. then the question becomes who decides whether it is or isn't (e.g. free markets vs price caps)
a lot of research has been done on "behavioral economics" which is one direction this conversation could take.
my initial reaction too the "Equifax hack" news was that the company will be gone in a year. They are going to be liable for huge penalties under the existing laws, and will simply not be able to stay in business.
MOST important is the fact that their business was "privacy"/security of personally identifiable information . While they probably weren't any worse at protecting their I.T. infrastructure than any other large company (looking at you Sony), the expectations are higher. Equifax's future is probably closer to DigiNotar than Sony
ltheir stock price looks like a dead cat bounce - if you play the market I'd be thinking about shorting (insert massive disclaimers - but if you are taking financial advice from/. --)
in the long tradition of "if there is a question in the/. title - the answer is yes" - yes "accurate" software development time predictions are myths
of course "accurate time predictions" are going to be "myths" for any massive project (a google search for "defense project over budget" produces interesting results - like this)
the fact that people tend to get better at "estimating" anything the more experience they get at "estimating" is a big part of the reason why "lead software engineers" make more money than "junior software developers"...
What the "business people"will tell you is that ideas are cheap, implementations are important, and elegant implementations are useless if no one needs/wants your product.
If you are writing software to solve a problem you have, and then hope that other people will find your software useful - that isn't a business
If you know that (* large number of people, who are willing/able to pay for your software *) have a problem and your software will help them with that problem - that is the beginning of a business....
1. who is the customer (if you answer "everyone" you are missing the point, start again)
2. what can we do that is better/cheaper/different than is already out there
3. profit!
for more (and better) advice - Guy Kawasaki has written several useful books - "The Art of the Start 2.0" is very good...
.... and just as relevant, Eli Whitney didn't become wealthy from the cotton gin (patent infringement issues)
BTW - slavery is expensive and never economical (you have to feed and house those slaves, not to mention employ people to make them work). What if we could get robots to do those jobs....
Microsoft greatly improved the smb protocol between Server 2008r2 and Server 2012. Increased performance of smb and encryption are also selling points Microsoft hammers to encourage upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10.
BUT now that I've shown my "Microsoft certified professional" bias, I actually read the article: this was within a web browser, and most damning = "But when you change the user-agent string of your browser on Linux to match IE or Edge, suddenly OneDrive's web code runs fine. "
Henry Ford kept cutting the cost of making the model T (the famous line about "customers can have any color they want, as long as it is black" illustrated that point - it was least expensive to paint the cars black) - so then they could sell it cheaper, but still made a profit
the other "Henry Ford" story often told is how they offered a $5 daily wage (a version of the story here) - but once again, the underlying intent was to increase worker productivity and decrease employee turn-over (people hated working on the assembly line, but if you paid them enough...)
if you could solve the "scarcity" problem (the "Star Trek" vision of the future) - then you might be able to get rid of "money", but that would also require changing basic elements of human nature
a petition to stop bad reviews? c'mon people... p.c. 101 = we believe in free speech that we agree with...
as far as "suicide squad" goes - I loved the "Batman: Assault on Arkham" animated flick. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it (my local library system has it on dvd) - very much not for the youngsters though (PG-13 all the way)...
to be honest, I've been turned off by any film with Wil Smith in it for quite a while - so I probably wouldn't have seen it anyway (even had a chance to get a free ticket and passed). DC does straight to dvd/whatever animated films very well - and keeps releasing terrible live action movies...
they were paying people to retire at 50, and then promising them benefits for the rest of their lives. Add in massive corruption and a shadow economy and they had the worst of both crony capitalism and socialism
The answer might be "simple" (cut welfare benefits, root out corruption, make business friendly changes to the tax code that encourage "free market" capitalism) - but by no means easy.
The EU is collapsing, so Greece will default soon anyway...
"confidential" = it would be embarrassing if this information leaked
"secret" = material/stuff might get destroyed if this information leaked
"top secret" = people could die if this information leaked
you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated...
The companies expect to achieve $2 billion in cost savings as well as significant tax benefits from the deal, under which Pfizer’s tax base would shift to Allergan’s home base in Ireland in a so-called inversion. As a result of the move, Pfizer expects to cut its tax rate to 17% or 18%, from its roughly 25% rate currently, because corporate taxes in Ireland are lower than in the U.S.
the owner "paid" for the increase in employee salaries by lowering his salary.
Also worth pointing out that people are making "at least" $70,000 - which implies that some (i.e. "more valuable") people are making more than $70,000. So this isn't some sort of "commune".
Under the "nothing new under the sun" category - Henry Ford did something similar during the early days of the assembly line (1914), introducing a $5 a day minimum wage (increasing from $2.34). The problem Ford had was people hated working on an assembly line. Employees would work a relatively short time then quit. The constant hiring and training was expensive - but more than doubling the daily wage was enough to increase employee retention and actually saved the company money...
Slashdot Mirror
In a "fair" world it would be "GNU/Linux" - "Linux" is the kernel, GNU provides other necessary "operating system" functions.
I've taught an "intro to Linux class" a couple times and can say that most textbooks only mention the GNU project in passing (if at all - in the beginning "history" type chapter) - so from that perspective everyone knows when you say "Linux" you are referring to an operating system (if they know what an OS is)
my personal preference is to talk about "distributions" (Ubuntu/Red Hat/whatever) but don't mention GNU unless I'm in a classroom setting (and then more to drive home the technical difference between "kernel" and "operating system").
I used "Revolution OS" to fill up some class time - if you are curious (and didn't live through it). In the documentary Bill Gates is the "bad guy", Stallman the crusader/fanatic, and Linus the practical applier of knowledge.
with all of that said - my official answer to the question is "no one cares"
to point out the obvious. Whatever the problem was, it wasn't because of "Net Neutrality" legislation. Or if Comcast weighs more than a duck - then Net Neutrality matters!
I'll point out that Benjamin Franklin (the guy on the $100 bill) made a very good living as a publisher back in the day. The point? As a writer/publisher looking to make a living he needed to know his audience and publish what people wanted to read/were willing to pay for (e.g. people loved almanac's so he created/published "poor richard's almanac"). I'll also point out that he never got much bigger than a 1 man operation
the problem's facing local news today aren't much different than in Franklin's time. You still need to find an audience and publish material in which they are interested. It is safe to say, that people are always interested in a couple things - 1.) themselves, 2.) their neighbors - so if you are a local news outlet you should focus on what large national publications can't cover - i.e. local people/government and their stories (lots of pictures, spell their names correctly)
for what it is worth (I live in southwestern Ohio) - close to half of our "big" local paper is syndicated news (stories from the NY Times and the WSJ a day later, the USA Today). but there are still numerous "community" papers, with close to 100% local content
"For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author's identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author's life plus 70 years)."
from copyright.gov
The U.S. Constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to establish a patent office, and copyright law. (Article I Section 8. Clause 8 ) -"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
so from a conceptual standpoint, if you write something and never publish it (at least in the United States) it is still covered by copyright during your lifetime no matter what you do. It is not possible for an individual to place something in the public domain - but you can give away your work if you like (conceptually the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" - maybe?)
It is important to remember that there are no "copyright police" enforcing copyright law en masse. If you create something (e.g. novel, song, software) and it is covered by copyright - it is your responsibility to protect your copyright. A very good way of proving that you created something is to register a copyright (for example in the United States) - then if someone steals your work, you can whip out your registration and prove you created it
while I'm bloviating - from an academic standpoint there is an obvious difference between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement." If I take a play by William Shakespeare, change the title and slap my name on it, then present it as my own original work - I have committed plagiarism, but not copyright infringement (since Willie's been dead for 400 years and all of his works are in the public domain)
of course the organization against legalizing sports gambling nationwide (in the United States) tends to come from casino's and other gambling institutions - so obviously just because people are in favor of something doesn't mean it is going to happen ...
the catch 22 problem Microsoft faced after they missed/messed up mobile was the "Apps gap"
e.g. no one wanted to write apps for Microsoft's mobile OS because there wasn't a big enough user base to make it worthwhile, no users wanted a Microsoft mobile device because there weren't any apps ...
which really illustrates the fact that users want to do "something" with their device (you know "use" the hardware), and the vast majority don't feel strongly about the Operating System
so the long held tradition of questions in the post title being obvious - "yes" the world needs additional mobile operating systems. then the question is "can they get a sizable market share from Android and/or Apple?" probably not.
eventually something will replace the smart phone type device and disrupt the computing industry. Of course I have no idea what that will be ...
if you are old enough to remember the 1990's - the same type question back then was some version of "does the world need operating systems other than Windows" - 20+ years later the question is "can Windows stay relevant"
if you haven't seen that episode of "the SImpsons" - (Season 4 Episode 12) here you go
My work here is done
the short answer is that for some being first to have a new product is important, and worth the additional cost. Add in the "Apple" brand and I'm sure the $1,000 iPhone will sell just fine.
the problem is that "value" is almost always subjective. Is $1,000 "too much" for a cell phone? maybe. then the question becomes who decides whether it is or isn't (e.g. free markets vs price caps)
a lot of research has been done on "behavioral economics" which is one direction this conversation could take.
the shorter version is to just say "De gustibus non est disputandum"
my initial reaction too the "Equifax hack" news was that the company will be gone in a year. They are going to be liable for huge penalties under the existing laws, and will simply not be able to stay in business.
MOST important is the fact that their business was "privacy"/security of personally identifiable information . While they probably weren't any worse at protecting their I.T. infrastructure than any other large company (looking at you Sony), the expectations are higher. Equifax's future is probably closer to DigiNotar than Sony
ltheir stock price looks like a dead cat bounce - if you play the market I'd be thinking about shorting (insert massive disclaimers - but if you are taking financial advice from /. --)
in the long tradition of "if there is a question in the /. title - the answer is yes" - yes "accurate" software development time predictions are myths
of course "accurate time predictions" are going to be "myths" for any massive project (a google search for "defense project over budget" produces interesting results - like this)
the fact that people tend to get better at "estimating" anything the more experience they get at "estimating" is a big part of the reason why "lead software engineers" make more money than "junior software developers" ...
price caps result in rationing or shortages (Venezuela being the latest example of price controls not working)
so remove the price caps, then help the school systems get internet access somehow (school funding/technology is a completely different subject ...)
What the "business people"will tell you is that ideas are cheap, implementations are important, and elegant implementations are useless if no one needs/wants your product.
If you are writing software to solve a problem you have, and then hope that other people will find your software useful - that isn't a business
If you know that (* large number of people, who are willing/able to pay for your software *) have a problem and your software will help them with that problem - that is the beginning of a business ....
for more (and better) advice - Guy Kawasaki has written several useful books - "The Art of the Start 2.0" is very good ...
all we have to do is get rid of electricity
no more will those pesky automated machines take away human jobs! Everyone will be able to work 16 hour days (or longer) just surviving
Every nation will be blessed just like large parts of Africa
I, for one welcome our new X overlords ...
.... and just as relevant, Eli Whitney didn't become wealthy from the cotton gin (patent infringement issues)
BTW - slavery is expensive and never economical (you have to feed and house those slaves, not to mention employ people to make them work). What if we could get robots to do those jobs ....
Microsoft greatly improved the smb protocol between Server 2008r2 and Server 2012. Increased performance of smb and encryption are also selling points Microsoft hammers to encourage upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10.
BUT now that I've shown my "Microsoft certified professional" bias, I actually read the article: this was within a web browser, and most damning = "But when you change the user-agent string of your browser on Linux to match IE or Edge, suddenly OneDrive's web code runs fine. "
So this really is as bad as it sounds - ...
did they try turning it off and then back on?
did it have to listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony while doing it
I'm sure Stanley Kubrick would approve
Henry Ford kept cutting the cost of making the model T (the famous line about "customers can have any color they want, as long as it is black" illustrated that point - it was least expensive to paint the cars black) - so then they could sell it cheaper, but still made a profit
the other "Henry Ford" story often told is how they offered a $5 daily wage (a version of the story here) - but once again, the underlying intent was to increase worker productivity and decrease employee turn-over (people hated working on the assembly line, but if you paid them enough ...)
if you could solve the "scarcity" problem (the "Star Trek" vision of the future) - then you might be able to get rid of "money", but that would also require changing basic elements of human nature
a petition to stop bad reviews? c'mon people ... p.c. 101 = we believe in free speech that we agree with ...
as far as "suicide squad" goes - I loved the "Batman: Assault on Arkham" animated flick. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it (my local library system has it on dvd) - very much not for the youngsters though (PG-13 all the way) ...
to be honest, I've been turned off by any film with Wil Smith in it for quite a while - so I probably wouldn't have seen it anyway (even had a chance to get a free ticket and passed). DC does straight to dvd/whatever animated films very well - and keeps releasing terrible live action movies ...
... but kept dying from dysentery on the way ...
nothing new, move along
... but if somebody did a scientific study, which has a conclusion, then I'm convinced I don't exist ...
they were paying people to retire at 50, and then promising them benefits for the rest of their lives. Add in massive corruption and a shadow economy and they had the worst of both crony capitalism and socialism
The answer might be "simple" (cut welfare benefits, root out corruption, make business friendly changes to the tax code that encourage "free market" capitalism) - but by no means easy.
The EU is collapsing, so Greece will default soon anyway ...
security wonk rule of thumb:
you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated ...
yes, revise the U.S. tax code - like politicians will ever do that ...
a less knee jerk/punish big corporations perspective in the WSJ:
the owner "paid" for the increase in employee salaries by lowering his salary.
Also worth pointing out that people are making "at least" $70,000 - which implies that some (i.e. "more valuable") people are making more than $70,000. So this isn't some sort of "commune".
Under the "nothing new under the sun" category - Henry Ford did something similar during the early days of the assembly line (1914), introducing a $5 a day minimum wage (increasing from $2.34). The problem Ford had was people hated working on an assembly line. Employees would work a relatively short time then quit. The constant hiring and training was expensive - but more than doubling the daily wage was enough to increase employee retention and actually saved the company money ...