My rebuttal will come once I sober up. I honestly did not expect a reply and you have proven that my assessment of you as a shill or Jones fan was in fact incorrect. Kudos. I have skimmed through your response and see that I have some homework ahead of me. The shitty thing with politics is that despite having opposing views, we are both likely as right as each other.
Mr McArdle (his lawyer) states that "That allegation [use of prostitutes] in the Fair Work matter is $7,000 - false as it is - out of a case that's $300,000." so I'm not sure where your figure of $900 comes from.
I base the ~$900 figure off the current (not original) charges and a sighted copy of all transactions. After the cited interview, many charges were dropped, and some added.
I would like to apologize for previously calling you a paid shill. I now realize my error. Nobody would pay you for this shit.
Labor only promoted FTTP because Telstra refused to negotiate on FTTN.
Telstra was more than willing to negotiate as is evidenced by their submissions to the RFP 2007/09. Telstra was embroiled in a pre-existing matter of open-access with the ACCC. Telstra's submission was excluded as it was purely based on Telstra winning the battle against the ACCC which Labor could see just wasn't going to happen. On top of this, the Howard Government (Liberal) attacked Labor's FttN plan claiming it wasn't viable due to the ageing copper. The whole process involving public funding, private funding, regulators and politics of the worst kind made Labor realize that, if they are going to pull this off, they need to go all out and do the thing themselves. Telstra did have a lot to do with this but are far from the 'only' reason why Labor updated their plan. We already had access to Telstra's last mile needed by the FttN and they couldn't do dick to stop it. We are no longer dependent on Telstra.
Labor only promised 1Gbps speed because just prior to the last election Google announced Google Fibre.
Fibre has been around long before Google - as has gigabit fibre. Labor highly underestimated the demand for bandwidth, originally looking for a way to get Australians off the typical (upto) 8/1 Mbps ADSL and on to something that resembles current LANs. During public consultation (something LNP have yet to do), Australian techies (your typical Slashdot, Delimiter or Whirlpool reader) kept asking about Gigabit services, pointing out that it would use the exact same infrastructure. It took some time but Labor found a way to be able to offer it and keep the existing pricing. Most people don't (yet) care, but for Australia's forward-thinking technologists, this is a big win
Less than 5% are predicted to connect at 1Gbps in 2028
Predicted by who? You? NBNCo's own corprate plan shows in Exhibit 2.12 that downstream trends from 1985 - 2012 extrapolated to 2025 that demand for and reliance on gigabit services and beyond are more than likely. It is available and it cost us nothing ectra to have it made available.
50% are predicted by Labor's NBN Corporate Plan to connect on fibre at 12Mbps
You, sir, have obviously never written a business plan. Conservatism is the name of the game. You plan for worst case. What we are seeing is that, as of Feb 2013, 41% have opted for the fastest available 100/40 plans and 11% have opted for the entry level 12/1
Huge amounts of money are being wasted by NBNCo (Building a Fibre NBN on a Copper budget)
Our NBN is a project that has been planned, approved and started. We could spend another year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years fine-tuning the project. Sure, it isn't perfect, but let us just finish it. Simon Hackett is a great man. I use his former ISP Internode whenever possible. He understands technology, he understands networks, he understands users. He does not, however, understand politics. A project as big as this isn't as simple as 'sign this piece of paper and we'll break ground tomorrow'. There is a lot of wheelin' 'n dealin' back-room politics. The unions want something, the greenies want something, the Indigenous want something, the media want something. On top of all this, Hackett is part of the G9, the very same consortium who don't want this NBN because it kills their entire business plan. The very same consortium that wanted to build out a privately-owned NBN and lock out competition.
Under Labor's plan wholesale Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) needs to rise from the current figure of just above $20 to over $100. Retail prices will need to rise even further when you add ISP costs and profits.
Again, where do you get your number from - 2GB? Telstr
In an attempt to avoid name-calling, I am going to walk around the block, calm down, and then come back and refute every single claim you have just made.
I don't know why I am wasting my breathe on such an obvious paid shill (or worse still, an Alan Jones follower). Hopefully I can translate the above copypasta for everybody else.
The Craig Thomson case is far from over and it is more than likely that he will prevail in court. Craig Thomson was arrested in NSW by Victorian Police on credit card fraud charges. These charges total a little over $900 AUD and Craig was authorized for up to $50,000 per annum in work-related and incidentals.
Expensive meals refers to the time he met with a journalist over lunch for purely work-related reasons. From memory, the bill was ~$55. The 'prostitutes' he supposedly bought with credit card was misreported after another publication printed 'pornographic movies'. Comically, the original publication also misreported as the movie in question was an R-rated action flick watched in his hotel room while staying for official business. The biggest stretch comes from 'Holidays Interstate'. This actually means he bought a soft-serve icecream to have on camera.
Scot MacDonald was a Liberal MP. As for NSW Labor corruption, at least the party is focused on cleaning it up. Two gone already. Eddie's little empire stretched much further than ALP though, most his mates are Libs. NoLiberalCorruption, eh?
Disclosure: I am not an ALP, Liberal or National member. I do not intend to give my first preference vote to any of these parties. I have previously been a Young Liberal.
Sure, but that only changes the binary choice into a somewhat finer-grained choice of which of the two coalitions you want to vote for. The next PM is exceedingly likely to come from either the Labor or the Liberal party
I agree that the choice of government is binary - Liberal or Labor. By voting for minor parties, we can achieve a few things. Firstly, we can signal to the other parties that we, the voters, are not completely happy with them. Secondly, we could again force a minority government which will help prevent a further shift to the right. Lastly, your first preference vote will help fund the campaign for that minor party*.
That is right. Each First Preference vote is worth $2.49*.
* = If that minor party achieves 4% or more of votes in any division.
What? . Mate, the ballot paper looks like an Asian grocery shelf and you complain about the lack of choice?
That is just the Senate ballot. The House of Representatives ballot isn't that impressive. Look at Sydney:
Australian Labor Party (Centre Right)
Liberal Party (Right)
Greens (Left)
Citizens Electoral Council (Far Right Fascist)
Palmer United Australia (Right)
Socialist Alliance (Left)
Christian Democratic Party (Right)
No independents. No candidates for truly transformative parties like Pirate Party (Left) and Wikileaks Party (Left). ALP, LP, PUA, and CDP all run the same platform, the Greens are too detached from reality, uncompromising, and unsupportive of incremental improvements, and SA, well, we've seen nothing from them except the 'Free Assange' campaign. Choice? No candidate represents what I want.
With the terror watch list having over 700,000 names, just how many times has Kevin Bacon been investigated?
Statisticians, please reply!
By no stretch of the imagination am I a statistician, but I thought I would share my back-of-the-napkin musings. Feel free to flame me over an errors.
define L as the distance between two nodes define K as acquaintances per node (relationships/connections) define N as number of nodes (participating population) define T as number of terror suspects.
While not actually needed, I am going to take a look at the math that made Kevin Bacon interesting. The original theory suggest 6 degrees. University of Milan suggests 4.74 degrees for Facebook. Six degrees of separation theory specifies 'by way of introduction'. This would require one to have a cognitive social relationship, so I will adopt the theories of Monkeysphere / Dunbar and set K as 150. Participating population (90% of actual population to exclude infants, etc) I will set as N(us)=300,000,000 and N(w)=6,400,000,000. T is, of course, 700,000 (or more). C is average number of connections to terror suspects.
There isn't a lot of information available but I am assuming that a hop is simply a degree of separation. Time to work backward.
L = ln N / ln K
3 = ln N / ln 150
ln N = 3 * ln 150
N = e^(3 * ln 150) = 3,375,000
So, for every person, and only considering cognitive social connections, there are 3,375,000 people connected within 3 hops.
So what is the chance of being connected to a terror suspect (assuming a random network - which is not really the case - this is a napkin not a research paper)?
Chance of being connected to a random person = Number of related nodes / Number of nodes
Chance of being connected to a terror suspect = Number of related nodes / Number of nodes * T
C = N / N(w) * T
C = 3,375,000 / 6,400,000,000 * 700,000
C = ~369
So, on average, and of course influenced by the circles we travel in, we are each within 3 hops of not 1, but 369 terror suspects.
What if we include your bus driver, teacher, lawyer, previous classmates, previous colleagues as being connected. Let us say K = 2,000
C = e^(L * K) / N(w) * T = 875,000
So, my shitty conclusion is that the NSA believe they can link every one of us to every, or almost every terror suspect on their list, at least once.
That's only of people on Facebook. In the us we have very few friends per person.
This has nothing to do with friendship. It is connections in a network. These could be friends, acquaintances, family, your barista, your neighbour, your teacher.
As far as the NSA scope is concerned, there is no requirement that a connection even requires a friendship or even any kind of social relationship. They simply need to connect 2 dots. Do you go to a certain gym on Thursdays? Now you have a connection with maybe 10, 50, or even 200 people. There is no social contract, it is not a cognitive connection. These are exactly the kind of networks the NSA are trying to analyze with its big data. In this case, N (or nodes) is likely in the range of 1,000 to 50,000 depending on your activity and city population.
Let us ignore Facebook because we are not social whores. Think of every email (spam included), phone call, letter, text message you have made or received in the last year. Even for a complete loner, that could be 500 connections. What about 3 years? Ten?
Humans make possibly millions of connections throughout their lifetime. Some of those become relationships. Some of those become friendships.
Your analogy holds true only if both projects, being Wayland and Mir, are serving the same purpose - They aren't.
Yes, they are both a display server/protocol, and yes, they are designed to replace X, but the goals of each project couldn't be more dissimilar.
Wayland is a long needed update to X that will fix a number of issues and allows for secure buffers that only the application and server can access. Wayland is being designed for the existing Linux desktop market and is a much needed project.
Mir, while adopting some ideas from Wayland, is a completely different beast that will focus on achieving two primary objectives: A display server that runs natively on both desktop and mobile, and, being actively developed and supported by new commercial partner Valve. It makes little sense for Canonical to wait for Wayland and then extend it for these two purposes as doing so will leave Canonical years behind on a shift that is happening NOW. Everyone has been waiting for the Year of Linux on the Desktop; this will bring the goal one step closer. The same goes for an unadulterated Linux on the Mobile where graphical applications are more easily ported from their desktop counterparts.
There is nothing stopping Wayland importing code from Mir and vice versa. The projects simply have different priorities for the time being and are likely to co-exist or even possibly merge when the race is over.
To borrow from your analogy: Canonical have found a reason to require a triscrew head. They believe it will work in more environments and also, with some effort, work on systems using a hex-screw. You are not locked in to using the triscrew and don't even have to change your screwdriver head should you not be involved in porting hex-screw to tri-screw or developing tri-screws for mobile devices.
None of this affects you. These guys are building a treehouse entirely in their own backyard. You seem a little miffed simply because you know some guys that previously built a treehouse and they are renovating it. Nonsensical.
Its hard enough getting 3 developers working together to produce quality software, let alone 3 THOUSAND. How exactly do they plan to manage this?
From the article, I gather that this is not 3,000 developers working on the OS or its elements, but rather, 3,000 developers spread across many separate projects to develop apps for the brand-new OS. This could be projects consisting of 1, 2, or 10 developers each.
This is actually a really novel approach and I bet Microsoft are now kicking themselves that they didn't think of it. In a matter of weeks, or at most a few months, a fully-populated app-store can be made available. With this approach, they'll be probably ranked #3 straight out the gate in terms of apps. Bravo.
Mozilla has such a (well-deserved) squeaky clean image. Considering the slight damage the Foxconn fiasco did to Apple's brand, I pray nothing happens to tarnish Mozilla's good name. Considering this is a partnership, it may prove difficult, if not, impossible to pull out if things start to go wrong. I wish them all the best.
"Exact binaries" is not the point of having the source code.
You are correct. However, it is a method to confirm that you have received the entire source code.
The point being made is that a binary could always contain functions that are malicious, buggy or infringe on copyright while the supplied source does not.
Case Study:
A software company (lets call them 'Macrosift') takes over project management of a GPL'd document conversion tool. Macrosift contribute quite a bit of code and the tool really takes off. Most users are obtaining this tool be either the Macrosift-controlled repository or a Macrosift partner-controlled repository as a pre-compiled binary. It can even convert all kinds of documents flawlessly into Macrosift's Orifice 2015 new extra standard format which no other tool seems to be able to do.
Newer versions of OpenOffice, LibreOffice, JoeOffice come out and this tool just doesn't seem to be doing the job. Sure, it converts perfectly from everything into MS.xsf but doesn't work so well the other way and won't work at all between some office suits. The project gets forked by the community to make it feature complete. The project managers start by compiling the source, and to their surprise, the tool will not work as well as the binary did. After a year passes, the community realizes they've been had. By painstakingly decompiling the binary, they discover that the function that converts to MS proprietary.xsf is different to that in the source. Another hidden function is discovered in the binary that introduces errors and file bloat after a certain date if the tool is being used solely on non-MS documents.
How else can I ascertain whether you have supplied me with THE source code for THIS binary if I can not produce said binary with provided source code?
Can't get people to buy your latest piece of software?
Simply offering a generous bug bounty may be enough to convince technologists to buy and use your software.
While the cost of the program is likely greater than the related sales, said technologists will become accustomed to your new software and push it on to their families, their friends, their neighbours, their customers and their workplaces. Genius marketing is genius.
As much as I enjoy bashing Microsoft, they have redeemed themselves a little by listening to their customers.
They're reportedly on top of the security issue as well. A little focus on the areas of privacy, ethics, and standards might convince me to become a customer again.
1. Buy property / imaginary property
2. Close it up
3. Anger the community
4. Wait for staff to quit
5. Replace existing features with unwanted bling
6. Force users of Island #5 to use the new facilities offered on Island #6
7. ?
8. Profit
The fake Mt Gox sites are found on domains such as mtgox.org, mtgox.net. Existing customers and Bitcoin early adopters will likely not fall for this.
This is likely targeting the non-tech-savvy followers who just heard through the media about a currency that can make you rich or a cool way to buy drugs. A searchor two will unlikely lead a potential victim to one of these fake sites, so they are depending on the advertising. Details are scarce on how they are advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
My rebuttal will come once I sober up. I honestly did not expect a reply and you have proven that my assessment of you as a shill or Jones fan was in fact incorrect. Kudos. I have skimmed through your response and see that I have some homework ahead of me. The shitty thing with politics is that despite having opposing views, we are both likely as right as each other.
Mr McArdle (his lawyer) states that "That allegation [use of prostitutes] in the Fair Work matter is $7,000 - false as it is - out of a case that's $300,000." so I'm not sure where your figure of $900 comes from.
I base the ~$900 figure off the current (not original) charges and a sighted copy of all transactions. After the cited interview, many charges were dropped, and some added.
This is a great reference
I would like to apologize for previously calling you a paid shill. I now realize my error. Nobody would pay you for this shit.
Labor only promoted FTTP because Telstra refused to negotiate on FTTN.
Telstra was more than willing to negotiate as is evidenced by their submissions to the RFP 2007/09. Telstra was embroiled in a pre-existing matter of open-access with the ACCC. Telstra's submission was excluded as it was purely based on Telstra winning the battle against the ACCC which Labor could see just wasn't going to happen. On top of this, the Howard Government (Liberal) attacked Labor's FttN plan claiming it wasn't viable due to the ageing copper. The whole process involving public funding, private funding, regulators and politics of the worst kind made Labor realize that, if they are going to pull this off, they need to go all out and do the thing themselves. Telstra did have a lot to do with this but are far from the 'only' reason why Labor updated their plan. We already had access to Telstra's last mile needed by the FttN and they couldn't do dick to stop it. We are no longer dependent on Telstra.
Labor only promised 1Gbps speed because just prior to the last election Google announced Google Fibre.
Fibre has been around long before Google - as has gigabit fibre. Labor highly underestimated the demand for bandwidth, originally looking for a way to get Australians off the typical (upto) 8/1 Mbps ADSL and on to something that resembles current LANs. During public consultation (something LNP have yet to do), Australian techies (your typical Slashdot, Delimiter or Whirlpool reader) kept asking about Gigabit services, pointing out that it would use the exact same infrastructure. It took some time but Labor found a way to be able to offer it and keep the existing pricing. Most people don't (yet) care, but for Australia's forward-thinking technologists, this is a big win
Less than 5% are predicted to connect at 1Gbps in 2028
Predicted by who? You? NBNCo's own corprate plan shows in Exhibit 2.12 that downstream trends from 1985 - 2012 extrapolated to 2025 that demand for and reliance on gigabit services and beyond are more than likely. It is available and it cost us nothing ectra to have it made available.
50% are predicted by Labor's NBN Corporate Plan to connect on fibre at 12Mbps
You, sir, have obviously never written a business plan. Conservatism is the name of the game. You plan for worst case. What we are seeing is that, as of Feb 2013, 41% have opted for the fastest available 100/40 plans and 11% have opted for the entry level 12/1
Huge amounts of money are being wasted by NBNCo (Building a Fibre NBN on a Copper budget)
Our NBN is a project that has been planned, approved and started. We could spend another year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years fine-tuning the project. Sure, it isn't perfect, but let us just finish it. Simon Hackett is a great man. I use his former ISP Internode whenever possible. He understands technology, he understands networks, he understands users. He does not, however, understand politics. A project as big as this isn't as simple as 'sign this piece of paper and we'll break ground tomorrow'. There is a lot of wheelin' 'n dealin' back-room politics. The unions want something, the greenies want something, the Indigenous want something, the media want something. On top of all this, Hackett is part of the G9, the very same consortium who don't want this NBN because it kills their entire business plan. The very same consortium that wanted to build out a privately-owned NBN and lock out competition.
Under Labor's plan wholesale Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) needs to rise from the current figure of just above $20 to over $100. Retail prices will need to rise even further when you add ISP costs and profits.
Again, where do you get your number from - 2GB? Telstr
In an attempt to avoid name-calling, I am going to walk around the block, calm down, and then come back and refute every single claim you have just made.
I don't know why I am wasting my breathe on such an obvious paid shill (or worse still, an Alan Jones follower). Hopefully I can translate the above copypasta for everybody else.
The Craig Thomson case is far from over and it is more than likely that he will prevail in court. Craig Thomson was arrested in NSW by Victorian Police on credit card fraud charges. These charges total a little over $900 AUD and Craig was authorized for up to $50,000 per annum in work-related and incidentals.
Expensive meals refers to the time he met with a journalist over lunch for purely work-related reasons. From memory, the bill was ~$55. The 'prostitutes' he supposedly bought with credit card was misreported after another publication printed 'pornographic movies'. Comically, the original publication also misreported as the movie in question was an R-rated action flick watched in his hotel room while staying for official business. The biggest stretch comes from 'Holidays Interstate'. This actually means he bought a soft-serve icecream to have on camera.
Scot MacDonald was a Liberal MP. As for NSW Labor corruption, at least the party is focused on cleaning it up. Two gone already. Eddie's little empire stretched much further than ALP though, most his mates are Libs. No Liberal Corruption, eh?
Disclosure: I am not an ALP, Liberal or National member. I do not intend to give my first preference vote to any of these parties. I have previously been a Young Liberal.
Sure, but that only changes the binary choice into a somewhat finer-grained choice of which of the two coalitions you want to vote for. The next PM is exceedingly likely to come from either the Labor or the Liberal party
I agree that the choice of government is binary - Liberal or Labor. By voting for minor parties, we can achieve a few things. Firstly, we can signal to the other parties that we, the voters, are not completely happy with them. Secondly, we could again force a minority government which will help prevent a further shift to the right. Lastly, your first preference vote will help fund the campaign for that minor party*.
That is right. Each First Preference vote is worth $2.49* .
* = If that minor party achieves 4% or more of votes in any division.
What? . Mate, the ballot paper looks like an Asian grocery shelf and you complain about the lack of choice?
That is just the Senate ballot. The House of Representatives ballot isn't that impressive. Look at Sydney:
Australian Labor Party (Centre Right)
Liberal Party (Right)
Greens (Left)
Citizens Electoral Council (Far Right Fascist)
Palmer United Australia (Right)
Socialist Alliance (Left)
Christian Democratic Party (Right)
No independents. No candidates for truly transformative parties like Pirate Party (Left) and Wikileaks Party (Left). ALP, LP, PUA, and CDP all run the same platform, the Greens are too detached from reality, uncompromising, and unsupportive of incremental improvements, and SA, well, we've seen nothing from them except the 'Free Assange' campaign. Choice? No candidate represents what I want.
Good catch. Need a bigger friggin' napkin.
With the terror watch list having over 700,000 names, just how many times has Kevin Bacon been investigated?
Statisticians, please reply!
By no stretch of the imagination am I a statistician, but I thought I would share my back-of-the-napkin musings. Feel free to flame me over an errors.
define L as the distance between two nodes
define K as acquaintances per node (relationships/connections)
define N as number of nodes (participating population)
define T as number of terror suspects.
While not actually needed, I am going to take a look at the math that made Kevin Bacon interesting. The original theory suggest 6 degrees. University of Milan suggests 4.74 degrees for Facebook. Six degrees of separation theory specifies 'by way of introduction'. This would require one to have a cognitive social relationship, so I will adopt the theories of Monkeysphere / Dunbar and set K as 150. Participating population (90% of actual population to exclude infants, etc) I will set as N(us)=300,000,000 and N(w)=6,400,000,000. T is, of course, 700,000 (or more). C is average number of connections to terror suspects.
L(us) = ln N(us) / ln K
L(us) = ln 300,000,000 / ln 150
L(us) = ~19.5 / ~5.0 = 3.9
L(w) = ln N(w) / ln K
L(w) = ln 6,400,000,000 / ln 150
L(w) = ~22.6 / ~5.0 = 4.5
There isn't a lot of information available but I am assuming that a hop is simply a degree of separation. Time to work backward.
L = ln N / ln K
3 = ln N / ln 150
ln N = 3 * ln 150
N = e^(3 * ln 150) = 3,375,000
So, for every person, and only considering cognitive social connections, there are 3,375,000 people connected within 3 hops.
So what is the chance of being connected to a terror suspect (assuming a random network - which is not really the case - this is a napkin not a research paper)?
Chance of being connected to a random person = Number of related nodes / Number of nodes
Chance of being connected to a terror suspect = Number of related nodes / Number of nodes * T
C = N / N(w) * T
C = 3,375,000 / 6,400,000,000 * 700,000
C = ~369
So, on average, and of course influenced by the circles we travel in, we are each within 3 hops of not 1, but 369 terror suspects.
What if we include your bus driver, teacher, lawyer, previous classmates, previous colleagues as being connected. Let us say K = 2,000
C = e^(L * K) / N(w) * T = 875,000
So, my shitty conclusion is that the NSA believe they can link every one of us to every, or almost every terror suspect on their list, at least once.
Scary.
On the internet, it's 4.74 degrees of separation.
That's only of people on Facebook. In the us we have very few friends per person.
This has nothing to do with friendship. It is connections in a network. These could be friends, acquaintances, family, your barista, your neighbour, your teacher.
As far as the NSA scope is concerned, there is no requirement that a connection even requires a friendship or even any kind of social relationship. They simply need to connect 2 dots. Do you go to a certain gym on Thursdays? Now you have a connection with maybe 10, 50, or even 200 people. There is no social contract, it is not a cognitive connection. These are exactly the kind of networks the NSA are trying to analyze with its big data. In this case, N (or nodes) is likely in the range of 1,000 to 50,000 depending on your activity and city population.
Let us ignore Facebook because we are not social whores. Think of every email (spam included), phone call, letter, text message you have made or received in the last year. Even for a complete loner, that could be 500 connections. What about 3 years? Ten?
Humans make possibly millions of connections throughout their lifetime. Some of those become relationships. Some of those become friendships.
I believe that for a PDF document to be a legal document, it needs to be in PDF/A format.
Where does this belief comes from?
Many states have legislation regarding the font, margins and paper sizes used for some legal documents.
US courts, archivists and many case management / COPS systems only accept documents in PDF/A.
I scanned TFS and TFA for a link to no avail so I had search for myself.
Link for the lazy or busy
--snip screwdriver analogy--
Your analogy holds true only if both projects, being Wayland and Mir, are serving the same purpose - They aren't.
Yes, they are both a display server/protocol, and yes, they are designed to replace X, but the goals of each project couldn't be more dissimilar.
Wayland is a long needed update to X that will fix a number of issues and allows for secure buffers that only the application and server can access. Wayland is being designed for the existing Linux desktop market and is a much needed project.
Mir, while adopting some ideas from Wayland, is a completely different beast that will focus on achieving two primary objectives: A display server that runs natively on both desktop and mobile, and, being actively developed and supported by new commercial partner Valve. It makes little sense for Canonical to wait for Wayland and then extend it for these two purposes as doing so will leave Canonical years behind on a shift that is happening NOW. Everyone has been waiting for the Year of Linux on the Desktop; this will bring the goal one step closer. The same goes for an unadulterated Linux on the Mobile where graphical applications are more easily ported from their desktop counterparts.
There is nothing stopping Wayland importing code from Mir and vice versa. The projects simply have different priorities for the time being and are likely to co-exist or even possibly merge when the race is over.
To borrow from your analogy: Canonical have found a reason to require a triscrew head. They believe it will work in more environments and also, with some effort, work on systems using a hex-screw. You are not locked in to using the triscrew and don't even have to change your screwdriver head should you not be involved in porting hex-screw to tri-screw or developing tri-screws for mobile devices.
None of this affects you. These guys are building a treehouse entirely in their own backyard. You seem a little miffed simply because you know some guys that previously built a treehouse and they are renovating it. Nonsensical.
If only female scientists would tell us their findings instead of expecting us to read their minds.
Is this subtle sarcasm, cleverly pointing out the parallel to windows 8? Or is it pure self assured ignorance?
Yes!
Its hard enough getting 3 developers working together to produce quality software, let alone 3 THOUSAND. How exactly do they plan to manage this?
From the article, I gather that this is not 3,000 developers working on the OS or its elements, but rather, 3,000 developers spread across many separate projects to develop apps for the brand-new OS. This could be projects consisting of 1, 2, or 10 developers each.
This is actually a really novel approach and I bet Microsoft are now kicking themselves that they didn't think of it. In a matter of weeks, or at most a few months, a fully-populated app-store can be made available. With this approach, they'll be probably ranked #3 straight out the gate in terms of apps. Bravo.
Mozilla has such a (well-deserved) squeaky clean image. Considering the slight damage the Foxconn fiasco did to Apple's brand, I pray nothing happens to tarnish Mozilla's good name. Considering this is a partnership, it may prove difficult, if not, impossible to pull out if things start to go wrong. I wish them all the best.
"Exact binaries" is not the point of having the source code.
You are correct. However, it is a method to confirm that you have received the entire source code.
The point being made is that a binary could always contain functions that are malicious, buggy or infringe on copyright while the supplied source does not.
Case Study:
A software company (lets call them 'Macrosift') takes over project management of a GPL'd document conversion tool. Macrosift contribute quite a bit of code and the tool really takes off. Most users are obtaining this tool be either the Macrosift-controlled repository or a Macrosift partner-controlled repository as a pre-compiled binary. It can even convert all kinds of documents flawlessly into Macrosift's Orifice 2015 new extra standard format which no other tool seems to be able to do.
Newer versions of OpenOffice, LibreOffice, JoeOffice come out and this tool just doesn't seem to be doing the job. Sure, it converts perfectly from everything into MS .xsf but doesn't work so well the other way and won't work at all between some office suits. The project gets forked by the community to make it feature complete. The project managers start by compiling the source, and to their surprise, the tool will not work as well as the binary did. After a year passes, the community realizes they've been had. By painstakingly decompiling the binary, they discover that the function that converts to MS proprietary .xsf is different to that in the source. Another hidden function is discovered in the binary that introduces errors and file bloat after a certain date if the tool is being used solely on non-MS documents.
How else can I ascertain whether you have supplied me with THE source code for THIS binary if I can not produce said binary with provided source code?
Can't get people to buy your latest piece of software?
Simply offering a generous bug bounty may be enough to convince technologists to buy and use your software.
While the cost of the program is likely greater than the related sales, said technologists will become accustomed to your new software and push it on to their families, their friends, their neighbours, their customers and their workplaces. Genius marketing is genius.
As much as I enjoy bashing Microsoft, they have redeemed themselves a little by listening to their customers.
They're reportedly on top of the security issue as well. A little focus on the areas of privacy, ethics, and standards might convince me to become a customer again.
1. Buy property / imaginary property
2. Close it up
3. Anger the community
4. Wait for staff to quit
5. Replace existing features with unwanted bling
6. Force users of Island #5 to use the new facilities offered on Island #6
7. ?
8. Profit
The fake Mt Gox sites are found on domains such as mtgox.org, mtgox.net. Existing customers and Bitcoin early adopters will likely not fall for this. This is likely targeting the non-tech-savvy followers who just heard through the media about a currency that can make you rich or a cool way to buy drugs. A search or two will unlikely lead a potential victim to one of these fake sites, so they are depending on the advertising. Details are scarce on how they are advertising.
We've already had Apple vs. Samsung this week, plus the oblig swipe at Windows, so tomorrow, it must be another Rasperry Pi story, eh?
Well, if you don't like news for nerds there are probably more suitable sites for you.
um... no.
I am unsure to which of my two statements that is referring to as neither was a question
Last time there were tweets of this nature, Wall Street had a flash crash.
um... no.
So are you saying that this event didn't take place? [citation needed]
I wonder if the 1.4% drop in the S&P500 today is related in any way.
um... no.
So are you saying I am NOT wondering if the drop is related
While I am somewhat confused, I do have one very strong argument to put across - and it goes a little something like this:
um... whatever.
Last time there were tweets of this nature, Wall Street had a flash crash.
I wonder if the 1.4% drop in the S&P500 today is related in any way.