Or they could rewrite the code from scratch. But that doesn't matter, because, as I pointed out at some length, nobody is locked into Github, and if they try to replace the protocol it speaks, projects will simply move somewhere else where git still works.
(And VS will have to continue to support regular git because of the many critical projects that aren't hosted on Github, or that would move off of Github if Github became MS-only.)
The only reason people use Github is because it's convenient and has a large community. Trying to turn it into something MS-specific would make it less convenient and reduce the size of its community (and give a huge boost to projects like Gitlab). If they wanted a proprietary VCS, they could have simply stuck with SourceSafe (or whatever it was called--I haven't used any MS products in decades).
Hence the 2nd through nth paragraphs of my post, pointing out all the negatives to MS and Github were they to attempt any such thing.
It would be a huge amount of work to implement their not-quite-Git from scratch, and nobody is locked into Github, so I can't see anything they could gain from all that effort. If they make Github incompatible with many of its users, many projects will simply move off of Github. Because, again, nobody is locked into Github.
Github offers a lot more than just git. But yeah, few projects would have much difficulty moving to another system, like, say, Gitlab, if Github went rogue. Which makes me doubt that MS has any plans to turn Github rogue. There's simply not enough lock-in there.
Git itself is still GPL'd. They can't distribute modified (or unmodified) versions without also providing the source code. Which means that any changes they make to provide a "special" version can easily be taken up by the folks who make the command-line version.
And even if they could, the result, if they tried such a thing, would be to fragment the community. Which is Github's main asset. Git, if you recall, is a distributed system. There's no need for a central point. A site like Github is merely a convenience for users. The only real benefit of Github is its community. If they damage that, they damage Github, but don't harm Git, because Git users aren't locked into Github.
Lots of big projects (including lots of big enterprise-y projects that MS customers care about) are already hosted on other sites, especially Gitlab. Plenty of big projects (including lots of big enterprise-y projects that MS customers care about) are cross-platform, and would quickly move to something else (e.g. Gitlab) if Github tried to turn MS-only. There simply isn't enough leverage there for MS to do anything nefarious at this stage.
Granted, I'd be watching like a hawk for their next move if they bought Github. But this move by itself doesn't really seem to give them any real opportunities, beyond the obvious of making money off of all the commercial projects hosted on Github.
(And frankly, if they do buy Github, I predict a lot of projects move to Gitlab or some other site anyway, as a just-in-case measure. Probably not enough to damage Github, but enough to help drive the point home: we're not locked in, guys.)
Nope, sorry, you lost me there. I realize such people exist, but I can't imagine what sort of nonsense is going through their heads. Nor can I think of any reason to respect someone who would show such obvious signs of brain damage.:)
As someone who stood in long lines multiple times for the original three movies, I have my complaints about the Disney movies, but every time I think about voicing them, I remember how much worse it likely would have been if Lucas had remained in charge, and I hold my tongue. They may not be perfect, but they're at least watchable! Which is something we hadn't seen from the franchise since '83!
Sure, the emo kid is a little annoying--but he's so much better than what Lucas did to poor Anakin in the prequels! And at least he's set up as the villain, so you're supposed to hate him. Lucas wanted us to sympathize with that annoying brat in his movies.
I mean, every time I want to complain about what Disney has done, I think about how much worse it would likely have been under Lucas's control, and I remain silent.
Honestly, the best movie of the original trilogy was the only one where Lucas wasn't entirely in charge. I credit Leigh Brackett with making Empire great. And aside from that, the only one that even matches the quality of the Disney films is the original. And even that got worse once Lucas started mucking about with the re-releases. There's a reason so many people own "Han shot first!" t-shirts--Han shot first was a much better story.
He didn't sleep with it running--that would be silly and pointless. (There are far more efficient ways to generate heat.) He just didn't power it up when the heat would have been intolerable--so, only during winter.
It was definitely loud, but I certainly didn't think it was unbearable. At least, not when you were awake and playing with it.
(His also hadn't been stripped down, so the outer casing may have helped reduce the noise--I'm really not sure. It's the only one I've ever been in the same room with.)
Not sure about the power, but he owned his own house and was unmarried, so it wouldn't have been a big issue.
The really tricky part is getting the Pi to emulate the thermal output of the original. I had a friend who had an old 11/70 set up in his bedroom. He only powered it up during winter, when he wanted the extra heat in any case.:)
This makes it easier for anyone to invalidate a patent, since there are now two methods for doing so: the traditional and expensive method (through the courts) and the new method (asking the PTO to reconsider their grant).
Basically, all that's happened is that the PTO is now allowed to admit they make mistakes. It doesn't require the courts to decide that they've made one.
Robots make robots, duh! Making robots is going to be one of the first jobs taken over by robots. After all, who has more expertise in creating robots to perform specific jobs? That's right--the robotics industry!
I'll bet good money that the overwhelming majority of robots are already built by robots!
They could do the same thing with H2SO4, which is a whole lot cheaper, and isn't limited to affecting PETs. I don't see why one is a worry and the other not.
I think some people are being confused by the use of the term "mutant" in the headline. This is not a creature. It doesn't reproduce. It's a chemical. You can worry about spills, but it's never going to be a plague.
The bacteria it was derived from might become a plague, but that's an already-existing worry, since it's a naturally occurring critter which is already out there in the wild. But this is just stuff. If it "gets loose", it'll just sit there. At worst, it might contaminate the groundwater or something, but that's true of a lot of other chemicals.
Actually, the traditional (and now very out-of-date) wisdom is that "speeded" should only be used with "up". So your complaint would be silly even if we did still subscribe to thy 19th century grammatical peeves. Forsooth!
If the enzyme gets loose? You do know what an enzyme is, don't you?
The bacteria which produced the precursor is already loose--it was a naturally occurring beast. Just how dangerous it is remains to be seen. It's worth worrying about.
But this new enzyme? It's true that enzymes aren't destroyed by their processes--that's one of their defining features--but they also don't move by themselves, so they're not going to "eat" anything they're not actively placed on. Nor do they reproduce. I think we're pretty safe.
I mean, sulfuric acid will also eat many plastics. Do you worry about sulfuric acid "getting loose" and eating your fleece jacket?
The other way around, actually. Meldown is the Intel-specific* (and far more severe) of the three related vulnerabilities. (The other two are collectively called Spectre.) Meltdown requires drastic changes to the OS kernels, which have a big impact on performance. Linux, at least, put an "if (cpu_vendor != AMD)" around their performance-inhibiting Meltdown fixes. The Spectre vulnerabilities, on the other hand, don't require the same sort of low-level OS patches. They need changes to apps, and we'll be dealing with them for years. They're a nightmare no matter which vendors we use. But on the bright side, the fixes don't have the same negative impact on performance.
The key takeaway here is that while these vulnerabilities weren't just Intel's problem, the bulk of the performance impact was!
All of which makes Intel a reasonable target for suspicion here. They may or may not be involved, but it's pretty easy to see their motives if they are. "You don't have to give up performance if you use our chips" is a great selling point for AMD, and Intel is almost certainly going to want to counter that somehow.
* Meltdown actually affects a few recent ARM64 chips as well, but that's a side issue. In the x86 world, it's Intel-specific.
Only consumers foolish enough to buy Apple products. And frankly, publicizing the fact that you have to pay extra for e-waste disposal with an iProduct would hit them dead center in their liberal/hippy treehugging fanbase.
Actually, they might be thinking of the corporations. No Net Neutrality hurts pretty much any company that isn't an ISP. And as far as I know, no major ISPs are based in Montana. So, for any Montana corporations, this is a good thing.
Project management is a lot like design: if it's good, it can help a lot; if it's bad, it can hurt a lot. And you can succeed without it, but there's likely to be a lot of random flailing during the process.
I've worked with good, bad, and indifferent managers. One of the best managers I ever worked with was not-at-all technical, but knew people, and knew how to communicate and motivate, and how to remain flexible. The guy single-handedly changed my entire opinion of and attitude towards project management.
So if the owner of GPL'd software is a single person and s/he passes away, does the right to make proprietary extensions to the code vanish for eternity?
No, it passes to the person's estate. The only thing that really changes (aside from the name of the person you need to talk to) is that the clock on the copyright finally starts ticking.
Interesting. I'm in the same demographic, but my reaction is almost the opposite. I dumped cable about five years ago, because I realized that a substantial majority of what I did watch was broadcast for free already. There are a few things I miss (mainly BBC America), but none of them added up to being worth what I was paying for them. Not even close!
I don't watch a lot of TV in any case, but I'm still watching and enjoying a handful of hours a week, and it's not down much from when I had cable.
I'd actually have to say that I think the average quality of broadcast TV is higher than the average quality of cable shows. Even if you ignore the craptastic cable channels that nobody watches.
I have basic cable because it's cheaper to get basic cable and internet, than just internet.
Well, ok, then. That's a damn good reason to keep cable. If that were true in my case, I'd still have cable as well. But I got fairly substantial savings by dumping cable. Possibly because we still have traces of competition here: I can have any ISP I want as long as they're Comcast or AT&T.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Or they could rewrite the code from scratch. But that doesn't matter, because, as I pointed out at some length, nobody is locked into Github, and if they try to replace the protocol it speaks, projects will simply move somewhere else where git still works.
(And VS will have to continue to support regular git because of the many critical projects that aren't hosted on Github, or that would move off of Github if Github became MS-only.)
The only reason people use Github is because it's convenient and has a large community. Trying to turn it into something MS-specific would make it less convenient and reduce the size of its community (and give a huge boost to projects like Gitlab). If they wanted a proprietary VCS, they could have simply stuck with SourceSafe (or whatever it was called--I haven't used any MS products in decades).
Hence the 2nd through nth paragraphs of my post, pointing out all the negatives to MS and Github were they to attempt any such thing.
It would be a huge amount of work to implement their not-quite-Git from scratch, and nobody is locked into Github, so I can't see anything they could gain from all that effort. If they make Github incompatible with many of its users, many projects will simply move off of Github. Because, again, nobody is locked into Github.
Github offers a lot more than just git. But yeah, few projects would have much difficulty moving to another system, like, say, Gitlab, if Github went rogue. Which makes me doubt that MS has any plans to turn Github rogue. There's simply not enough lock-in there.
Git itself is still GPL'd. They can't distribute modified (or unmodified) versions without also providing the source code. Which means that any changes they make to provide a "special" version can easily be taken up by the folks who make the command-line version.
And even if they could, the result, if they tried such a thing, would be to fragment the community. Which is Github's main asset. Git, if you recall, is a distributed system. There's no need for a central point. A site like Github is merely a convenience for users. The only real benefit of Github is its community. If they damage that, they damage Github, but don't harm Git, because Git users aren't locked into Github.
Lots of big projects (including lots of big enterprise-y projects that MS customers care about) are already hosted on other sites, especially Gitlab. Plenty of big projects (including lots of big enterprise-y projects that MS customers care about) are cross-platform, and would quickly move to something else (e.g. Gitlab) if Github tried to turn MS-only. There simply isn't enough leverage there for MS to do anything nefarious at this stage.
Granted, I'd be watching like a hawk for their next move if they bought Github. But this move by itself doesn't really seem to give them any real opportunities, beyond the obvious of making money off of all the commercial projects hosted on Github.
(And frankly, if they do buy Github, I predict a lot of projects move to Gitlab or some other site anyway, as a just-in-case measure. Probably not enough to damage Github, but enough to help drive the point home: we're not locked in, guys.)
you tolerated the prequel movies
Nope, sorry, you lost me there. I realize such people exist, but I can't imagine what sort of nonsense is going through their heads. Nor can I think of any reason to respect someone who would show such obvious signs of brain damage. :)
As someone who stood in long lines multiple times for the original three movies, I have my complaints about the Disney movies, but every time I think about voicing them, I remember how much worse it likely would have been if Lucas had remained in charge, and I hold my tongue. They may not be perfect, but they're at least watchable! Which is something we hadn't seen from the franchise since '83!
Sure, the emo kid is a little annoying--but he's so much better than what Lucas did to poor Anakin in the prequels! And at least he's set up as the villain, so you're supposed to hate him. Lucas wanted us to sympathize with that annoying brat in his movies.
So...better than most Star Wars movies, then? :)
I mean, every time I want to complain about what Disney has done, I think about how much worse it would likely have been under Lucas's control, and I remain silent.
Honestly, the best movie of the original trilogy was the only one where Lucas wasn't entirely in charge. I credit Leigh Brackett with making Empire great. And aside from that, the only one that even matches the quality of the Disney films is the original. And even that got worse once Lucas started mucking about with the re-releases. There's a reason so many people own "Han shot first!" t-shirts--Han shot first was a much better story.
He didn't sleep with it running--that would be silly and pointless. (There are far more efficient ways to generate heat.) He just didn't power it up when the heat would have been intolerable--so, only during winter.
It was definitely loud, but I certainly didn't think it was unbearable. At least, not when you were awake and playing with it.
(His also hadn't been stripped down, so the outer casing may have helped reduce the noise--I'm really not sure. It's the only one I've ever been in the same room with.)
Not sure about the power, but he owned his own house and was unmarried, so it wouldn't have been a big issue.
The really tricky part is getting the Pi to emulate the thermal output of the original. I had a friend who had an old 11/70 set up in his bedroom. He only powered it up during winter, when he wanted the extra heat in any case. :)
For those who missed the joke: ed is the standard text editor.
This makes it easier for anyone to invalidate a patent, since there are now two methods for doing so: the traditional and expensive method (through the courts) and the new method (asking the PTO to reconsider their grant).
Basically, all that's happened is that the PTO is now allowed to admit they make mistakes. It doesn't require the courts to decide that they've made one.
someone had to make the robots.
Robots make robots, duh! Making robots is going to be one of the first jobs taken over by robots. After all, who has more expertise in creating robots to perform specific jobs? That's right--the robotics industry!
I'll bet good money that the overwhelming majority of robots are already built by robots!
They could do the same thing with H2SO4, which is a whole lot cheaper, and isn't limited to affecting PETs. I don't see why one is a worry and the other not.
I think some people are being confused by the use of the term "mutant" in the headline. This is not a creature. It doesn't reproduce. It's a chemical. You can worry about spills, but it's never going to be a plague.
The bacteria it was derived from might become a plague, but that's an already-existing worry, since it's a naturally occurring critter which is already out there in the wild. But this is just stuff. If it "gets loose", it'll just sit there. At worst, it might contaminate the groundwater or something, but that's true of a lot of other chemicals.
Actually, the traditional (and now very out-of-date) wisdom is that "speeded" should only be used with "up". So your complaint would be silly even if we did still subscribe to thy 19th century grammatical peeves. Forsooth!
http://grammarist.com/usage/sp...
If the enzyme gets loose? You do know what an enzyme is, don't you?
The bacteria which produced the precursor is already loose--it was a naturally occurring beast. Just how dangerous it is remains to be seen. It's worth worrying about.
But this new enzyme? It's true that enzymes aren't destroyed by their processes--that's one of their defining features--but they also don't move by themselves, so they're not going to "eat" anything they're not actively placed on. Nor do they reproduce. I think we're pretty safe.
I mean, sulfuric acid will also eat many plastics. Do you worry about sulfuric acid "getting loose" and eating your fleece jacket?
The other way around, actually. Meldown is the Intel-specific* (and far more severe) of the three related vulnerabilities. (The other two are collectively called Spectre.) Meltdown requires drastic changes to the OS kernels, which have a big impact on performance. Linux, at least, put an "if (cpu_vendor != AMD)" around their performance-inhibiting Meltdown fixes. The Spectre vulnerabilities, on the other hand, don't require the same sort of low-level OS patches. They need changes to apps, and we'll be dealing with them for years. They're a nightmare no matter which vendors we use. But on the bright side, the fixes don't have the same negative impact on performance.
The key takeaway here is that while these vulnerabilities weren't just Intel's problem, the bulk of the performance impact was!
All of which makes Intel a reasonable target for suspicion here. They may or may not be involved, but it's pretty easy to see their motives if they are. "You don't have to give up performance if you use our chips" is a great selling point for AMD, and Intel is almost certainly going to want to counter that somehow.
* Meltdown actually affects a few recent ARM64 chips as well, but that's a side issue. In the x86 world, it's Intel-specific.
Only consumers foolish enough to buy Apple products. And frankly, publicizing the fact that you have to pay extra for e-waste disposal with an iProduct would hit them dead center in their liberal/hippy treehugging fanbase.
To what do we owe this sudden attack of sanity on our courts?
A couple of things. Most directly, probably, Alice v CLS Bank. Though In Re Bilski and Mayo v Prometheus were pretty helpful too.
Like online banking, shopping and trading.
To be fair, there are some strong arguments against those. Although I tend to doubt that Google or Apple really endorses those arguments. :D
Actually, they might be thinking of the corporations. No Net Neutrality hurts pretty much any company that isn't an ISP. And as far as I know, no major ISPs are based in Montana. So, for any Montana corporations, this is a good thing.
One, despite what many in the US (and even the US government) seem to believe, the EU is not actually part of the US.
Two, none of the parties here are ISPs.
So, no, what the US does about net neutrality is completely irrelevant here.
Project management is a lot like design: if it's good, it can help a lot; if it's bad, it can hurt a lot. And you can succeed without it, but there's likely to be a lot of random flailing during the process.
I've worked with good, bad, and indifferent managers. One of the best managers I ever worked with was not-at-all technical, but knew people, and knew how to communicate and motivate, and how to remain flexible. The guy single-handedly changed my entire opinion of and attitude towards project management.
So if the owner of GPL'd software is a single person and s/he passes away, does the right to make proprietary extensions to the code vanish for eternity?
No, it passes to the person's estate. The only thing that really changes (aside from the name of the person you need to talk to) is that the clock on the copyright finally starts ticking.
Interesting. I'm in the same demographic, but my reaction is almost the opposite. I dumped cable about five years ago, because I realized that a substantial majority of what I did watch was broadcast for free already. There are a few things I miss (mainly BBC America), but none of them added up to being worth what I was paying for them. Not even close!
I don't watch a lot of TV in any case, but I'm still watching and enjoying a handful of hours a week, and it's not down much from when I had cable.
I'd actually have to say that I think the average quality of broadcast TV is higher than the average quality of cable shows. Even if you ignore the craptastic cable channels that nobody watches.
Well, ok, then. That's a damn good reason to keep cable. If that were true in my case, I'd still have cable as well. But I got fairly substantial savings by dumping cable. Possibly because we still have traces of competition here: I can have any ISP I want as long as they're Comcast or AT&T. :)
> All of those things are just as true now as they were a thousand years ago.
A thousand years? As soon as writing was invented, it was used to complain about how this newfangled writing will ruin everything.