Does the same logic apply if you're renting a video? Buying a book? Grocery shopping? And anyway, who's got time for separate "on sly" trips to the video game store? Being a parent with a full-time job doesn't leave you a whole lot of "me" time, and what you do get is usually after the kids are in bed--and the video stores are closed.
And who says he's not buying them a game at the same time?
If your kid doesn't know that some books, videos and games are for adults, and not for kids, you're not raising them right.
The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child. My brother often takes his kids to the game store, and and may buy game for himself or for his kids. Or, frequently, both.
That said, yes, there probably a lot of people too clueless to realize that the one game that is probably the most famous of all games in the world for not being for kids isn't for kids. But trying to estimate the number of people in that category by counting the number of people who happen to buy it while having a child in tow is just as clueless, in quite another way.
No, they just don't like to expose them in the main GUI. Heck, they're even getting better in some respects. In Gnome2, you had to dig around in the general gnome settings to turn on sloppy focus, which could be fairly painful. In Gnome3, you just have to go to the tweak tool.
But yeah, if they get rid of middle-paste entirely, I'll be switching either back to fvwm or to something else entirely, like XFCE or Enlightenment.
If you want to maximize your chances of passing on your genes, then yes, you most certainly do. "Be fruitful and multiply", he said, but he certainly didn't give us the most efficient tools for doing so.
The point of the NSA and the GCHQ is to gather intelligence.
That's only part of their point. They're also supposed to protect US/UK secrets against spying. You may notice that these goals are somewhat at odds, which is why such organizations tend to be a little schizophrenic.
It's worse than that. If this plant produced 10% of the world's supply, and its output was cut in half, that means we've only lost 5% of our normal production.
1) Copyright. The FOSS movement was created as a reaction against copyright being applied to software.
No, it was created as a reaction against software distributed without source. RMS couldn't fix his printer driver because it didn't come with source. And copyright is the only thing that allows copyleft licenses to require source distribution. Overall, I think copyright is a net benefit.
3) Trademarks. Same question as above. And the commercial branches of some FOSS projects have used trademarks to kill competing support/education.
Well, in response to "how many DCMA cease-and-desist notices have we seen" regarding trademarks, I think the answer is pretty clearly none. If you really meant, how many trademark lawsuits, I don't recall hearing of any. If you mean trademark disputes in general, then yes, there have been a few, but a lot of them were purely within the FLOSS community, like Firebird DB v Mozilla, or Firefox v Debian. And most were settled amicably, and, IMO, correctly. And overall, trademarks work great for the FLOSS community. Does anybody really mind that Debian has the exclusive rights to the name Debian? I think it's a very good thing. Sure, there are a few unfortunate situations that have arisen, like the kerfluffle over the Linux mark, and Open Office (dot org), but those are quite rare in my experience, and in general, I think trademark law has been a big benefit to the community in protecting project identities.
The issue at hand is that RdRand cannot be trusted to produce random numbers. Both sides agree on this. One side argues that it should never be used, the other side argues that it can be used if mixed with other random number sources.
One side argues out of utter ignorance that it should never be used; the other side argues based on solid math that it can be used if handled properly. Both sides are properly paranoid, but only one has the facts on their side: the dev team.
As for the people who are complaining about Linus's tone here--I admit that he can be a bit harsh on his fellow developers at times, but this isn't such a case. This is him slapping down an ignorant fool who fully deserves the abuse he got, and perhaps more.
The simple fact is that not using RDRAND will not lock out the NSA--if they're hacking chips, there are thousands of ways they can subvert your system, and RDRAND is almost too obvious (and too easy to avert, as the kernel devs are doing). If your need for security is so high that you can't trust your chips, your only reasonable alternative is to build your own. Good luck with that.:)
When will Linux finally use standard ABIs and APIs for drivers just like very other OS on the planet?
What do Xorg (totally OS-independent), Wayland (ditto, as far as I know), and XMir (again, ditto, though I'm not sure it's been tested on any other systems) have to do with Linux? These are not kernel drivers we're talking about.
Others have answered your incredibly off-topic and irrelevant questions, so I'll satisfy myself with pointing out that your questions are incredibly off-topic and irrelevant.
(Oh, and for the record, I started with Linux 0.12, and am currently running 3.10. Not every old fart is as paralyzed by the concept of change as you seem to be. Some of us even realize that very few apps actually use the kernel ABIs directly.)
No, there really isn't once you take Clarke's Third Law into account: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Middle Earth could have existed in The Matrix. Just ferinstance.
Granted, for the vast majority of works, the distinction is usually clear, but SF writers have also been deliberately blurring the borders between the two genres since at least the 1950s.
Is Star Wars fantasy or SF? There's strong arguments on both sides. What about FTL travel? Isn't that fantasy? Psychic powers? Time Travel? (Larry Niven's only time travel stories had the hero constantly stumbling across unicorns and other fantasy creatures in the past, because Niven was convinced that time travel was pure fantasy.)
SF writers don't like boxes. Make a couple of nice, neat boxes labeled "science fiction" and "fantasy", and they'll start writing stories that don't fit neatly into either box, but clearly belong in at least one, just for the fun of it. Look at Roger Zelazny (esp. Lord of Light and Creatures of Light and Darkness) or Gene Wolfe (The Shadow of the Torturer won the World Fantasy Award, but then the sequel revealed that the series was actually SF) or countless others.
Re:Linux for Workgroups 3.11
on
Linux 3.11 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Note that the previous version, 3.10, was named "Unicycling Gorilla". The fact that you probably had no idea it was named that shows just how important these release names are.:)
The idea that one can "recklessly" create such a small risk is bizarre.
Bizarre? Certainly. In fact, the judge here made it fairly clear that the bar is very high in attempting such a prosection. Remember, he ruled for the defendant. Which is a good precedent to have on the books. All he really did is refuse to say that it's impossible that anyone could ever be guilty in this way. Which I think is reasonable; I dislike overbroad rulings. They tend to have unwanted side-effects.
Your risk analysis misses the point. This is not about risk analysis--this is about legality. Judges don't make the laws. Inducing your friend to drive is not illegal, because driving is not illegal, despite being risky. Texting while driving is illegal. Thus, inducing someone to text while driving might be illegal. But it's also now clear that any such case is going to have to be extremely solid. The prosecution will have to prove that you both knew your friend was driving and that you knew he was likely to respond to your text while still driving. If they can actually prove all that beyond any reasonable doubt, well, I'm not sure that prosecuting you is the wrong thing to do.
I thought words get added when there's long term meaningfulness.
The primary criterion is being widespread. Long-term is a secondary factor, though often an important one. The OOD happens to be a resource which gives less weight to long-term meaningfulness than, say, the OED. But documenting widespread-but-not-long-term (flash-in-the-pan) terms is a useful function, since documents written today may still exist years in the future.
Honestly, as a fan of 1940s mystery novels, I'm glad to see slang-of-an-era get documented. Even if that era is now, the documentation will continue to be useful.
I do, however, agree that this particular event has gotten way more press coverage than it needs or deserves. It's the OOD doing what they have done for many years.
That aside, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Why? As long as it's properly marked as slang (and I can't imagine it would be called anything else), it serves it purpose of letting people who aren't familiar with the word know what it means. I can't count the number of times I have found some obscure bit of slang in an old book, and been overjoyed to find out that it's documented in my dictionary. In ten, or twenty, or fifty years, when the term "twerking" has basically died the death it deserves, someone reading a work published in 2013 may be equally overjoyed to find his or her dictionary explains the word. That's what dictionaries are for.
No, it's not... It doesn't matter if he is a dumbass or not. You are not legally responsible for his behavior. He is.
Since the court said otherwise, I find my willingness to accept you as an expert on who is or is not legally responsible somewhat limited. Unless you'd care to divulge where you got your degree in law? (I'm pretty sure I can find out where the judge got his.)
that does not diminish his personal legal responsibility to operate a car in a safe manner in any way. Nor does that transfer his legal responsibility to you.
That can be true without removing your liability. Your liability can exist without diminishing or transferring his. Just as (ferexample), a getaway driver can be liable for his part in a bank robbery without diminishing or transferring the liability of the people who actually went in and robbed the bank.
So you're correct to say that this won't excuse the driver in any way, but incorrect to suggest that that somehow gets you off the hook.
You watched Joe drive away, and you know he lives 20 minutes away, and you texted him after 5. Or, your text was sent five minutes after Joe's text saying "Ok, I'm hopping in my car now, will arrive in 20 minutes". Or...
How, generally speaking, would the sender necessarily know that the recipient is driving at the time?
One, the person may have a regular schedule, and invariably be on the road between certain hours every morning and evening. (This is fairly common outside the computer industry, believe it or not.) Two, you just saw them leave. Three, you just received a message announcing that they're on their way. There's probably more, but that should certainly do for a start.
Yes, there may be lots of times where you don't know, but there are still going to be plenty of times when you do. And if you also know that they're the sort of dumbass who is likely to try to respond to a text while driving, well...I don't see it as far-fetched to assign you part of the blame. I'd certainly blame myself if I possessed all the knowledge this seems to require and did it anyway.
It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text.
I know quite people who insist on reading texts while driving, and I do try to avoid texting them when I know they're driving. If you don't, you are putting people's lives at risk. And yes, I think that in that case (and only in that case), you deserve a share of the blame.
Facebook can't be blamed because Facebook can't possibly know that the person has stupid habits or that they happen to be driving. But when it comes to your friends, you can know---sometimes.
The driver does not have to read the text or answer the phone.
Yes, but many people do, and if it's someone you know, you may well also know that they will do so in response to your text.
I really don't have a problem with this as long as it's strictly limited to cases where the texter indeed had good reason both to know that the recipient was driving, and to expect that he would attempt to respond. The prosecution would have to establish both facts beyond a reasonable doubt (since we're talking criminal charges here).
It's really common sense: if you know your buddy is kind of a dumbass about such things, don't text him when you know he's driving. I already have people I apply this rule to.
If the answer were clearly no, there would be no reason to phrase it as a question. In any case, which is more likely? That one guy is dissatisfied with the direction the foundation has been going, or that everyone else involved (a group that includes a whole lot of very smart people) has honestly gotten "lost" (whatever that means)?
In fact, the only thing that's actually clear is that (at least) one developer has expressed dissatisfaction with the direction the project has been going in recently. So, wouldn't "Developer expresses dissatisfaction with the Apache Foundation's direction" have made a better, more honest headline?
I prefer to think of it as child abuse. And before you say it, no, there is no correlation between low intelligence and believing stupid things. Intelligent people are, in fact, quite adept at coming up with elaborate justifications for believing the most incredibly stupid things. So this is not just killing stupid kids.
Furthermore, it's not just the children of these deluded fools who are at risk. There are a lot of children who cannot get standard vaccines because of various allergies. Normally, these children are protected by herd immunity, but when enough people begin to refuse vaccinations based on stupid, insane, and utterly discredited theories, the herd immunity protection goes away.
Frankly, I think the anti-vaxxers are shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and should be treated accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the same logic apply if you're renting a video? Buying a book? Grocery shopping? And anyway, who's got time for separate "on sly" trips to the video game store? Being a parent with a full-time job doesn't leave you a whole lot of "me" time, and what you do get is usually after the kids are in bed--and the video stores are closed.
And who says he's not buying them a game at the same time?
If your kid doesn't know that some books, videos and games are for adults, and not for kids, you're not raising them right.
The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child. My brother often takes his kids to the game store, and and may buy game for himself or for his kids. Or, frequently, both.
That said, yes, there probably a lot of people too clueless to realize that the one game that is probably the most famous of all games in the world for not being for kids isn't for kids. But trying to estimate the number of people in that category by counting the number of people who happen to buy it while having a child in tow is just as clueless, in quite another way.
No, they just don't like to expose them in the main GUI. Heck, they're even getting better in some respects. In Gnome2, you had to dig around in the general gnome settings to turn on sloppy focus, which could be fairly painful. In Gnome3, you just have to go to the tweak tool.
But yeah, if they get rid of middle-paste entirely, I'll be switching either back to fvwm or to something else entirely, like XFCE or Enlightenment.
If you want to maximize your chances of passing on your genes, then yes, you most certainly do. "Be fruitful and multiply", he said, but he certainly didn't give us the most efficient tools for doing so.
The point of the NSA and the GCHQ is to gather intelligence.
That's only part of their point. They're also supposed to protect US/UK secrets against spying. You may notice that these goals are somewhat at odds, which is why such organizations tend to be a little schizophrenic.
It's worse than that. If this plant produced 10% of the world's supply, and its output was cut in half, that means we've only lost 5% of our normal production.
1) Copyright. The FOSS movement was created as a reaction against copyright being applied to software.
No, it was created as a reaction against software distributed without source. RMS couldn't fix his printer driver because it didn't come with source. And copyright is the only thing that allows copyleft licenses to require source distribution. Overall, I think copyright is a net benefit.
3) Trademarks. Same question as above. And the commercial branches of some FOSS projects have used trademarks to kill competing support/education.
Well, in response to "how many DCMA cease-and-desist notices have we seen" regarding trademarks, I think the answer is pretty clearly none. If you really meant, how many trademark lawsuits, I don't recall hearing of any. If you mean trademark disputes in general, then yes, there have been a few, but a lot of them were purely within the FLOSS community, like Firebird DB v Mozilla, or Firefox v Debian. And most were settled amicably, and, IMO, correctly. And overall, trademarks work great for the FLOSS community. Does anybody really mind that Debian has the exclusive rights to the name Debian? I think it's a very good thing. Sure, there are a few unfortunate situations that have arisen, like the kerfluffle over the Linux mark, and Open Office (dot org), but those are quite rare in my experience, and in general, I think trademark law has been a big benefit to the community in protecting project identities.
Aside from that, though, I think you nailed it.
The issue at hand is that RdRand cannot be trusted to produce random numbers. Both sides agree on this. One side argues that it should never be used, the other side argues that it can be used if mixed with other random number sources.
One side argues out of utter ignorance that it should never be used; the other side argues based on solid math that it can be used if handled properly. Both sides are properly paranoid, but only one has the facts on their side: the dev team.
As for the people who are complaining about Linus's tone here--I admit that he can be a bit harsh on his fellow developers at times, but this isn't such a case. This is him slapping down an ignorant fool who fully deserves the abuse he got, and perhaps more.
The simple fact is that not using RDRAND will not lock out the NSA--if they're hacking chips, there are thousands of ways they can subvert your system, and RDRAND is almost too obvious (and too easy to avert, as the kernel devs are doing). If your need for security is so high that you can't trust your chips, your only reasonable alternative is to build your own. Good luck with that. :)
When will Linux finally use standard ABIs and APIs for drivers just like very other OS on the planet?
What do Xorg (totally OS-independent), Wayland (ditto, as far as I know), and XMir (again, ditto, though I'm not sure it's been tested on any other systems) have to do with Linux? These are not kernel drivers we're talking about.
Others have answered your incredibly off-topic and irrelevant questions, so I'll satisfy myself with pointing out that your questions are incredibly off-topic and irrelevant.
(Oh, and for the record, I started with Linux 0.12, and am currently running 3.10. Not every old fart is as paralyzed by the concept of change as you seem to be. Some of us even realize that very few apps actually use the kernel ABIs directly.)
No, there really isn't once you take Clarke's Third Law into account: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Middle Earth could have existed in The Matrix. Just ferinstance.
Granted, for the vast majority of works, the distinction is usually clear, but SF writers have also been deliberately blurring the borders between the two genres since at least the 1950s.
Is Star Wars fantasy or SF? There's strong arguments on both sides. What about FTL travel? Isn't that fantasy? Psychic powers? Time Travel? (Larry Niven's only time travel stories had the hero constantly stumbling across unicorns and other fantasy creatures in the past, because Niven was convinced that time travel was pure fantasy.)
SF writers don't like boxes. Make a couple of nice, neat boxes labeled "science fiction" and "fantasy", and they'll start writing stories that don't fit neatly into either box, but clearly belong in at least one, just for the fun of it. Look at Roger Zelazny (esp. Lord of Light and Creatures of Light and Darkness) or Gene Wolfe (The Shadow of the Torturer won the World Fantasy Award, but then the sequel revealed that the series was actually SF) or countless others.
That's correct. Here's the diff: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/Makefile?id=ad81f0545ef01ea651886dddac4bef6cec930092.
Note that the previous version, 3.10, was named "Unicycling Gorilla". The fact that you probably had no idea it was named that shows just how important these release names are. :)
Right. It's not about the risk. Inducing someone into illegal behavior is illegal, and texting-while-driving is illegal behavior.
The idea that one can "recklessly" create such a small risk is bizarre.
Bizarre? Certainly. In fact, the judge here made it fairly clear that the bar is very high in attempting such a prosection. Remember, he ruled for the defendant. Which is a good precedent to have on the books. All he really did is refuse to say that it's impossible that anyone could ever be guilty in this way. Which I think is reasonable; I dislike overbroad rulings. They tend to have unwanted side-effects.
Your risk analysis misses the point. This is not about risk analysis--this is about legality. Judges don't make the laws. Inducing your friend to drive is not illegal, because driving is not illegal, despite being risky. Texting while driving is illegal. Thus, inducing someone to text while driving might be illegal. But it's also now clear that any such case is going to have to be extremely solid. The prosecution will have to prove that you both knew your friend was driving and that you knew he was likely to respond to your text while still driving. If they can actually prove all that beyond any reasonable doubt, well, I'm not sure that prosecuting you is the wrong thing to do.
Since this appeared in the OOD, you threw away the wrong book. (The OED is unlikely to add it unless it persists for at least a couple more decades.)
I thought words get added when there's long term meaningfulness.
The primary criterion is being widespread. Long-term is a secondary factor, though often an important one. The OOD happens to be a resource which gives less weight to long-term meaningfulness than, say, the OED. But documenting widespread-but-not-long-term (flash-in-the-pan) terms is a useful function, since documents written today may still exist years in the future.
Honestly, as a fan of 1940s mystery novels, I'm glad to see slang-of-an-era get documented. Even if that era is now, the documentation will continue to be useful.
I do, however, agree that this particular event has gotten way more press coverage than it needs or deserves. It's the OOD doing what they have done for many years.
That aside, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Why? As long as it's properly marked as slang (and I can't imagine it would be called anything else), it serves it purpose of letting people who aren't familiar with the word know what it means. I can't count the number of times I have found some obscure bit of slang in an old book, and been overjoyed to find out that it's documented in my dictionary. In ten, or twenty, or fifty years, when the term "twerking" has basically died the death it deserves, someone reading a work published in 2013 may be equally overjoyed to find his or her dictionary explains the word. That's what dictionaries are for.
No, it's not... It doesn't matter if he is a dumbass or not. You are not legally responsible for his behavior. He is.
Since the court said otherwise, I find my willingness to accept you as an expert on who is or is not legally responsible somewhat limited. Unless you'd care to divulge where you got your degree in law? (I'm pretty sure I can find out where the judge got his.)
that does not diminish his personal legal responsibility to operate a car in a safe manner in any way. Nor does that transfer his legal responsibility to you.
That can be true without removing your liability. Your liability can exist without diminishing or transferring his. Just as (ferexample), a getaway driver can be liable for his part in a bank robbery without diminishing or transferring the liability of the people who actually went in and robbed the bank.
So you're correct to say that this won't excuse the driver in any way, but incorrect to suggest that that somehow gets you off the hook.
You watched Joe drive away, and you know he lives 20 minutes away, and you texted him after 5. Or, your text was sent five minutes after Joe's text saying "Ok, I'm hopping in my car now, will arrive in 20 minutes". Or...
How, generally speaking, would the sender necessarily know that the recipient is driving at the time?
One, the person may have a regular schedule, and invariably be on the road between certain hours every morning and evening. (This is fairly common outside the computer industry, believe it or not.) Two, you just saw them leave. Three, you just received a message announcing that they're on their way. There's probably more, but that should certainly do for a start.
Yes, there may be lots of times where you don't know, but there are still going to be plenty of times when you do. And if you also know that they're the sort of dumbass who is likely to try to respond to a text while driving, well...I don't see it as far-fetched to assign you part of the blame. I'd certainly blame myself if I possessed all the knowledge this seems to require and did it anyway.
It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text.
I know quite people who insist on reading texts while driving, and I do try to avoid texting them when I know they're driving. If you don't, you are putting people's lives at risk. And yes, I think that in that case (and only in that case), you deserve a share of the blame.
Facebook can't be blamed because Facebook can't possibly know that the person has stupid habits or that they happen to be driving. But when it comes to your friends, you can know---sometimes.
The driver does not have to read the text or answer the phone.
Yes, but many people do, and if it's someone you know, you may well also know that they will do so in response to your text.
I really don't have a problem with this as long as it's strictly limited to cases where the texter indeed had good reason both to know that the recipient was driving, and to expect that he would attempt to respond. The prosecution would have to establish both facts beyond a reasonable doubt (since we're talking criminal charges here).
It's really common sense: if you know your buddy is kind of a dumbass about such things, don't text him when you know he's driving. I already have people I apply this rule to.
If the answer were clearly no, there would be no reason to phrase it as a question. In any case, which is more likely? That one guy is dissatisfied with the direction the foundation has been going, or that everyone else involved (a group that includes a whole lot of very smart people) has honestly gotten "lost" (whatever that means)?
In fact, the only thing that's actually clear is that (at least) one developer has expressed dissatisfaction with the direction the project has been going in recently. So, wouldn't "Developer expresses dissatisfaction with the Apache Foundation's direction" have made a better, more honest headline?
Ha, so true! If I had mod points, I'd donate 'em all to you! :)
I prefer to think of it as child abuse. And before you say it, no, there is no correlation between low intelligence and believing stupid things. Intelligent people are, in fact, quite adept at coming up with elaborate justifications for believing the most incredibly stupid things. So this is not just killing stupid kids.
Furthermore, it's not just the children of these deluded fools who are at risk. There are a lot of children who cannot get standard vaccines because of various allergies. Normally, these children are protected by herd immunity, but when enough people begin to refuse vaccinations based on stupid, insane, and utterly discredited theories, the herd immunity protection goes away.
Frankly, I think the anti-vaxxers are shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and should be treated accordingly.
Once again we have a clear example of Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."