Maybe comprehend my point? Saying "well bluh this OS over here has only had X problems while this general purpose OS over there has had Y problems" is not comparing like with like. There are secured dists of Linux where the comparison makes sense. It does not make sense to compare OpenBSD to RHEL. Different use patterns, different requirements, different tradeoffs.
I could scatter a bunch of coins on the ground and an observer could infer all kinds of relationships based on the distance between the coins. The observer might, after a while, go wildly overboard and start proclaiming all this was by design. They might even start fudging and massaging the facts to fit this hypothesis - maybe particular coins follow a pattern of sorts but others don't, so let's discard those coins and focus on the ones that do etc.
I really don't see this being far removed from what is being suggested by the article, that standing stones in the British Isles are positioned in a way which is pythagorean. There are hundreds of standing stone circles all over the isles. It would not be hard to cherry pick some of them and shoehorn the hypothesis into. It's the sort of pseudo archeological garbage that Graham Hancock has been doing for years.
You're comparing apples to oranges. I expect the usage patterns of of Red Hat Linux compared to OpenBSD are vastly different.
I'm sure OpenBSD is very secure and probably worth considering for some very specific roles. It's not a general purpose operating system nor capable of running the kinds of software or loads that a commercial Linux dist is.
"remote" and "default" being the operative terms. Hyperthreading requires local execution and I have no objection to them defaulting to disable HT, providing there is a simple way to enable it. My beef was the GP saying security trumps speed, or that somehow security is a one-size-fits-all that should be applied even when it doesn't fit the threat model.
If we're going to go down this reductionist security-trumps-all argument then OpenBSD should disable networking too. And keyboard and monitor support. In fact it should shut down when it starts, but not before throwing away the disk encryption key and bricking the device. Now it's secure.
The point is that security is a trade-off between what the device allows and what the threats actually are. Crippling a computers performance to mitigate a threat that doesn't exist for a user is wrong. At the very least it should be an option that might disabled by default but can be enabled if the users wants it to be.
Then you won't want to ever buy a car from companies such as Honda or Toyota (or any car company for that matter), provided it is the first model year of a new engine, new body, or both. Every car company has issues with the first year model of a new model or engine, guaranteed.
The adage "never buy version 1.0 of anything" applies to all cars. Never said anything different.
And when you throw shoddy QC on top thanks to Tesla's desperation to fulfill orders, and software which didn't even deliver with a working radio FFS, then you're just compounding the problems. They'll get there eventually. No reason to be the guinea pig until they do.
Yes because every product ever is vaguely specified and requires people to plunk down cash sight unseen to join a queue to receive theirs many years later. Thanks for clarifying that.
Again, I'm not convinced there is a conspiracy per se but there are certainly ways screw around with Tesla that don't involve competing with them - spreading negative and false news, messing with their supply chain, stock market manipulation, interfering with their sales model.
There are signs that manufacturers are starting to compete by offering their own EVs. Jaguar's new i-Pace is potentially a model S killer and things like the Leaf, Ioniq, Bolt et all might eat Tesla's lunch at the other end. Some manufacturers are even stating that their entire line up will be all hybrid or pure EVs in a couple of years.
I don't want a brand new car that needs to be repaired because it wasn't adequately QCd in the first place. If QC turned a blind eye to faults customers can discover what faults are still there that they can't see - issues with wiring, software, structural joins and so on?
And all car manufacturers offer a vehicle warranty. I'm sure Tesla's repair service is nice and all but what would be even nicer is not having to use it. And that assumes they can even rectify faults or will do so unless a danger exists that requires a recall.
And no, I don't think any of this has to do with why people preordered. I think the main reason was hype, the media band wagon and a failure to think things through.
The time to squash your competitors and grind them to dust is as soon as possible, not after they start eating your lunch. I'm not convinced there is an overarching conspiracy per se against Tesla or for sabotage, but I can certainly see market forces and automakers as having a strong desire for Tesla to tank and thinking of means to achieve it.
It should still have been up to 20000 by this point. Tesla's problem was they decided to build a brand new car in a brand new plant in a stupidly ambitious timeframe. It was very clear beforehand that they would hit issues and that some issues like QC would be swept under the carpet to keep the volumes up.
I guess it's good for them that they are overcoming these problems but I don't know why anyone would want to be an early adopter until there were resolved.
It's not just the weight of the batteries in isolation but the weight of the propulsion system in total - batteries, motor, wiring vs the equivalent in combustion - fuel, engine, aux battery / dynamo (to power the instruments), differential gearing, exhausts etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the electric aircraft was still heavier but perhaps the difference between the two isn't as much as people expect.
On top of that, the electric motor should allow the aircraft to take off more quickly, climb faster and be more efficient in ways (air intakes, drag etc.) that offset against its added weight. And of course the aircraft can be charged from renewable sources and has less mechanical parts so the operating costs should be lower.
A version of Wordperfect was actually ported to Java in a suite called Corel Office for Java. Sadly it wasn't a pretty sight partly due to the limitations of Java and browsers at the time.
Even in the case of zero the bee is still being shown a picture. In the bee's brain that might count as a "something" where this pure "something" is more attractive than that dirty "something" when it is collecting nectar. It might not be anything more than that.
Is to access government services - taxes, passports, benefits etc. There is no reason whatsoever for it to extend beyond that, and besides it would be trivially easy to sidestep, e.g. using a VPN to another country.
No, not extortion, common sense. Inviting the absolute worst people in the world to publish "games" on their platform will not end well. This is completely obvious.
No more than any other game platform. Google App store (for example) requires games to rate themselves according to the markets they sell in. It takes down games which are in violation of those ratings or the service policy. Steam only needs to do something similar. Absent of that they will find themselves on the receiving end of lots of negative press until they DO change their policies.
They'll be unhappy for the same reasons they're unhappy when other social platforms host terrorism, pedophilia, racism etc. More so, given that many Steam users are under the age of 18.
It's a stupid move by Steam to open themselves up to this. A sane policy would be to require games to abide by regional content rating systems and banhammer those which are shown to be flagrantly in violation.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe comprehend my point? Saying "well bluh this OS over here has only had X problems while this general purpose OS over there has had Y problems" is not comparing like with like. There are secured dists of Linux where the comparison makes sense. It does not make sense to compare OpenBSD to RHEL. Different use patterns, different requirements, different tradeoffs.
I really don't see this being far removed from what is being suggested by the article, that standing stones in the British Isles are positioned in a way which is pythagorean. There are hundreds of standing stone circles all over the isles. It would not be hard to cherry pick some of them and shoehorn the hypothesis into. It's the sort of pseudo archeological garbage that Graham Hancock has been doing for years.
Some people would think so and get all worked up about if they didn't.
I'm sure OpenBSD is very secure and probably worth considering for some very specific roles. It's not a general purpose operating system nor capable of running the kinds of software or loads that a commercial Linux dist is.
"remote" and "default" being the operative terms. Hyperthreading requires local execution and I have no objection to them defaulting to disable HT, providing there is a simple way to enable it. My beef was the GP saying security trumps speed, or that somehow security is a one-size-fits-all that should be applied even when it doesn't fit the threat model.
If we're going to go down this reductionist security-trumps-all argument then OpenBSD should disable networking too. And keyboard and monitor support. In fact it should shut down when it starts, but not before throwing away the disk encryption key and bricking the device. Now it's secure. The point is that security is a trade-off between what the device allows and what the threats actually are. Crippling a computers performance to mitigate a threat that doesn't exist for a user is wrong. At the very least it should be an option that might disabled by default but can be enabled if the users wants it to be.
GitHub et al don't want to get involved in an something which is most likely going to end up in doxxing and other attacks.
Then you won't want to ever buy a car from companies such as Honda or Toyota (or any car company for that matter), provided it is the first model year of a new engine, new body, or both. Every car company has issues with the first year model of a new model or engine, guaranteed.
The adage "never buy version 1.0 of anything" applies to all cars. Never said anything different.
And when you throw shoddy QC on top thanks to Tesla's desperation to fulfill orders, and software which didn't even deliver with a working radio FFS, then you're just compounding the problems. They'll get there eventually. No reason to be the guinea pig until they do.
Yes because every product ever is vaguely specified and requires people to plunk down cash sight unseen to join a queue to receive theirs many years later. Thanks for clarifying that.
That's a nice bundle of anecdotes and defensiveness.
Don't be an early adopter then. There are plenty of people who are perfectly happy buying things that are fixed on the go.
Fools and their money are soon parted.
hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahaha
You're easily amused. There are not many vehicle manufacturers with as bad a reputation for QC as Tesla.
Yes people seem to often not think things through, especially when it comes to comparing car manufacturers or understanding the motivations of others.
Actually I did think things through. The situation for the model 3 was completely predictable.
There are signs that manufacturers are starting to compete by offering their own EVs. Jaguar's new i-Pace is potentially a model S killer and things like the Leaf, Ioniq, Bolt et all might eat Tesla's lunch at the other end. Some manufacturers are even stating that their entire line up will be all hybrid or pure EVs in a couple of years.
And all car manufacturers offer a vehicle warranty. I'm sure Tesla's repair service is nice and all but what would be even nicer is not having to use it. And that assumes they can even rectify faults or will do so unless a danger exists that requires a recall.
And no, I don't think any of this has to do with why people preordered. I think the main reason was hype, the media band wagon and a failure to think things through.
I don't obviously given what is known. It seems odd to not mention it if in fact they have.
The time to squash your competitors and grind them to dust is as soon as possible, not after they start eating your lunch. I'm not convinced there is an overarching conspiracy per se against Tesla or for sabotage, but I can certainly see market forces and automakers as having a strong desire for Tesla to tank and thinking of means to achieve it.
If this is sabotage and not hyperbole as described, Tesla should really be calling in the FBI.
I guess it's good for them that they are overcoming these problems but I don't know why anyone would want to be an early adopter until there were resolved.
On top of that, the electric motor should allow the aircraft to take off more quickly, climb faster and be more efficient in ways (air intakes, drag etc.) that offset against its added weight. And of course the aircraft can be charged from renewable sources and has less mechanical parts so the operating costs should be lower.
A version of Wordperfect was actually ported to Java in a suite called Corel Office for Java. Sadly it wasn't a pretty sight partly due to the limitations of Java and browsers at the time.
Even in the case of zero the bee is still being shown a picture. In the bee's brain that might count as a "something" where this pure "something" is more attractive than that dirty "something" when it is collecting nectar. It might not be anything more than that.
Is to access government services - taxes, passports, benefits etc. There is no reason whatsoever for it to extend beyond that, and besides it would be trivially easy to sidestep, e.g. using a VPN to another country.
No, not extortion, common sense. Inviting the absolute worst people in the world to publish "games" on their platform will not end well. This is completely obvious.
No more than any other game platform. Google App store (for example) requires games to rate themselves according to the markets they sell in. It takes down games which are in violation of those ratings or the service policy. Steam only needs to do something similar. Absent of that they will find themselves on the receiving end of lots of negative press until they DO change their policies.
No, it's not a big straw man you idiot. It's a predictable consequence of a service that doesn't have a proper policy on that kind of content.
It's a stupid move by Steam to open themselves up to this. A sane policy would be to require games to abide by regional content rating systems and banhammer those which are shown to be flagrantly in violation.