What, USB 2 fast? Seems like you never tried to transfer 16 GB of photo's to a PC that only has USB 2. Seriously, USB 2 is slow. If you want fast, try USB 3.
As identifying as Microsoft should only remove credentials and reduce privileges, you shouldn't need to ID for this. You don't show your ID to prove that you're under 18 to get kicked out.
That would make the connection unencrypted during the authentication, and would need to be manually enabled on all sites where you would use it. Not that it matters, it would be an anti-feature anyway.
> OpenSSH doesn't allow an unencrypted connection (after authentication).
A secure shell doesn't support insecure connections? How could that be? Have you considered that probably SSH isn't the right tool for the job then? Making insecure connections possible with SSH sounds like a rather bad idea. The purpose of SSH *is* to maintain a secure connection, if you want an insecure one you might consider something else. Anyone using OpenSSH would be expecting that the connections they make *are* secured, adding support for insecured ones is a big huge fucking no.
My SSH documentation doesn't mention the exclamation point feature, I couldn't find it mentioned on openssh.com, are you by any chance confusing Match in sshd_config with Host in ssh_config?
Support for CAs might be a nice feature, but I wouldn't call it an issue. If you really need it, what happened when you tried to contribute it, or at least request it?
"Pretty much every distribution has standardized on Pulseaudio" is the very definition of regress. What you said was getting better and better? I installed Debian unstable on my laptop, with KDE desktop, and it also installed and enabled this trainwreck called "PulseAudio", which serves as only purpose to disable the audio of an already working system. Sound has worked for me in Linux since forever, never had any problems with it until PulseAudio came around.
During the early days I had been using a sound card with hardware mixing. Back then even Windows wasn't coping well with several streams and a card supporting only one, so what OSS offered back then was good enough for me, and on par with other operating systems. Then came ALSA, which offered dmix and dsnoop to do it software. Now, dsnoop has never worked for me, but I don't know any other operating system that supports such a feature so I guess I don't have much ground to complain.
Then PulseAudio came around, and that is the first time when I had any problem with sound on Linux. Sound started to be skippy, jumpy, choppy, and not working in some applications. Why would anyone think that PulseAudio would be a good idea? Now, don't get me wrong, I like PulseAudio, I even use it for some tasks. Namely playing music from my laptop on the soundcard of my desktop. But thanks to the brilliant idea that PulseAudio should be used everywhere I couldn't really do that anymore, because I had to eradicate PulseAudio to have sound again, so I couldn't use it for *my* needs. Fuck me.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure I'm chronologically correct above, the sound might have been in a better state in Windows than in Linux during OSS times, I just mean that I was already used to being able to play only *one* sound at a time when I first came to use Linux, so it seemed pretty normal thing to me.
I disagree. Do you have any reason why you want to get rid of X?
X's code base is ugly at places, and writing pure-X11 applications isn't the most fun thing in the world, but I can't think of (m)any shortcomings that lead to any trouble in real world usage that can't be fixed. Also, X has to offer a lot of things that any new thing wouldn't have. You might not use many of the features you get for free with X, but some of us do. X's architecture can be seen as a shortcoming, but it's also an advantage in many situation. Remote X for example is a great thing.
The biggest problem is all the applications that are currently written for X. You can't rewrite everything, and it is not even worth it. Really. X is working fine, and it's getting better. The same goes for the drivers, and everything that's already in.
And if Google Chrome OS's windowing system doesn't support the X protocol, I can assure you I won't be using it.
Forgetting to put the href in the link to the most important physics news in the century is like forgetting to put your weenie in the most beautiful^W^Wonly girl that shared her company with you.
The article doesn't mention where the array would be put, but if it is in low earth orbit, it wouldn't be illuminated all night. Also, that's not exactly.0000008% extra energy, because it would be blocking the same light from reaching the Earth. Not all of it is reaching the Earth, so it is a bit more effective, but putting on solar array in LEO is just a more efficient than putting it on the grou.... Wait, what's that about launch costs and beaming the energy to Earth that you mentioned?
At some point in the future we would hopefully be gathering a lot of our power in space. Whether it would be solar panels, or cultivation farms, it doesn't matter. But if you put them all in the LEO, you wouldn't win much. To put things into perspective: Covering all of the Earth with solar panels in LEO would: 1) Block 100% of the light reaching us 2) Increase the surface area of the panels at most twice 3) Increase the light received per square meter because of the lack of atmosphere at most two-three times
And that excludes the costs of keeping the arrays. This is why these are almost pointless.
However, they are a good thing, because they are one step forward in both space affairs and energy production. They might or they might not help us put energy gathering facilities in higher orbits, Lagrangian points, etc. You could put solar panels, cultivation farms and so on the counterweights of your space elevators in geostatic orbit, and on the moon, and at L1. Then you transport the crops from there to here, and beam the energy down. Sounds easy.:P
And if you weren't responsible for the fatal accident, he would have been right. The problem is not that somebody caused a fatal accident, but because they were fucking reckless, and were texting while driving, which they shouldn't do.
No, he's not. Read what he said. He used the world "children". "Children" not only includes people under 12-13, but also refers to them. I also might agree that there are types of "voluntary pedophilia" that aren't harmful to the child. But he isn't talking about them, it's obvious that he means "sex with a child". This has been shown to be harmful in various studies. Did Stallman do some research before making such statements?
Even if the studies misinterpretted the results, or their assumptions don't apply to his case (e.g. all studies showing harm are based on 'involuntary' sex with a child), how can you define a "voluntary" in that case? A child might agree to do a lot of things s/he doesn't like or want. That's a child, for fuck's sake. Has Stallman ever seen one? Does he remember his own childhood? I can easily imagine how would I have felt if an adult tried to have sex with me when I was a child. I don't know if I would have 'agreed', but it would have been quite unpleasant and disgusting experience if I did.
Even if it is harmless, which doesn't seem the case, you shouldn't force anyone to have sex with you for your pleasure. And if you are talking about a child, you forced them, whether they "agreed" or didn't.
What he said would be OK if it was for young teenagers, but it is certainly not when you're talking about a child.
I agreed with most that Stallman has ever said about software freedom, but in this case he is simply out of touch, as if he is living in another universe. And this isn't the first time.
Not everybody is aware of the "Microsoft's standard behaviour", and not everybody is realizing it is an issue. So FSF are starting a campaign that raises awareness of the issues. It might have wasted _your_ time, but that doesn't matter. It's not aimed at you.
I'm not sure if that's worth a bug report. A video tag is different from a plugin, which is for some kind of unknown object. The plugin has it's own controls, which Mozilla can't hide, and also Mozilla can't control the playback inside of it, so the plugin _can't_ be utilized for the video tag, as much as I wish it could.
My anecdote might be interesting and funny, but it isn't fixable. Unless, of course, there are changes in the plugin architecture (adding support for video plugins) and (or) in the plugins themselves.
Firefox doesn't show the video because it doesn't support H264. It's funny, because if you have a plugin for the H264 format installed, it still doesn't show the video. But if you right-click on it and select "Show video" from the menu, it opens it in a new window, where it is playing just fine.
Trying to destruct a drive while the plates are spinning and the disk is open can be dangerous. I've done it a few times, but recently there are some manufacturers that make the plates from glass, and the glass can easily be crused if you do something to the plates while they're spinning, or you spin them too fast. I knew a kid who had been injured by hitting a glass plate of a hard drive while it was spinning.
He has a less chance to recover any data than if it was shot with a shotgun, as suggested by the article. I'm unconvinced that data can be retrieved back after the drive has been written with zeroes ones, much less that there are much people on Slashdot who would ever work with a hard drive that will end up at the good forensic IT guy, but for them there are better erasing programs. Certainly better than a shotgun, which might leave huge parts of the plates intact, if you don't shoot it enough times.
Your idea is interesting, mostly because a lot less people would switch their ISP because you blocked their access to EMI, Sony, Universal or Warner, than would if you blocked their access to The Pirate Bay.
How is KolibriOS "based on" Menuet, given than the former is GPL, and the latter is under a proprietary license? Their history page seems empty, and the only description I found on their page is in Russian, which I'm not good in.
Slashdot Mirror
No, as the headline states, they borrowed it. And they promised to return it when they are done.
You and all slashdotters suck cock anyway.
What, USB 2 fast? Seems like you never tried to transfer 16 GB of photo's to a PC that only has USB 2. Seriously, USB 2 is slow. If you want fast, try USB 3.
As identifying as Microsoft should only remove credentials and reduce privileges, you shouldn't need to ID for this. You don't show your ID to prove that you're under 18 to get kicked out.
Unless you enjoy ruining the experience for everyone else.
That would make the connection unencrypted during the authentication, and would need to be manually enabled on all sites where you would use it. Not that it matters, it would be an anti-feature anyway.
> OpenSSH doesn't allow an unencrypted connection (after authentication).
A secure shell doesn't support insecure connections? How could that be? Have you considered that probably SSH isn't the right tool for the job then? Making insecure connections possible with SSH sounds like a rather bad idea. The purpose of SSH *is* to maintain a secure connection, if you want an insecure one you might consider something else. Anyone using OpenSSH would be expecting that the connections they make *are* secured, adding support for insecured ones is a big huge fucking no.
My SSH documentation doesn't mention the exclamation point feature, I couldn't find it mentioned on openssh.com, are you by any chance confusing Match in sshd_config with Host in ssh_config?
Support for CAs might be a nice feature, but I wouldn't call it an issue. If you really need it, what happened when you tried to contribute it, or at least request it?
"Pretty much every distribution has standardized on Pulseaudio" is the very definition of regress. What you said was getting better and better? I installed Debian unstable on my laptop, with KDE desktop, and it also installed and enabled this trainwreck called "PulseAudio", which serves as only purpose to disable the audio of an already working system. Sound has worked for me in Linux since forever, never had any problems with it until PulseAudio came around.
During the early days I had been using a sound card with hardware mixing. Back then even Windows wasn't coping well with several streams and a card supporting only one, so what OSS offered back then was good enough for me, and on par with other operating systems. Then came ALSA, which offered dmix and dsnoop to do it software. Now, dsnoop has never worked for me, but I don't know any other operating system that supports such a feature so I guess I don't have much ground to complain.
Then PulseAudio came around, and that is the first time when I had any problem with sound on Linux. Sound started to be skippy, jumpy, choppy, and not working in some applications. Why would anyone think that PulseAudio would be a good idea? Now, don't get me wrong, I like PulseAudio, I even use it for some tasks. Namely playing music from my laptop on the soundcard of my desktop. But thanks to the brilliant idea that PulseAudio should be used everywhere I couldn't really do that anymore, because I had to eradicate PulseAudio to have sound again, so I couldn't use it for *my* needs. Fuck me.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure I'm chronologically correct above, the sound might have been in a better state in Windows than in Linux during OSS times, I just mean that I was already used to being able to play only *one* sound at a time when I first came to use Linux, so it seemed pretty normal thing to me.
I disagree. Do you have any reason why you want to get rid of X?
X's code base is ugly at places, and writing pure-X11 applications isn't the most fun thing in the world, but I can't think of (m)any shortcomings that lead to any trouble in real world usage that can't be fixed. Also, X has to offer a lot of things that any new thing wouldn't have. You might not use many of the features you get for free with X, but some of us do. X's architecture can be seen as a shortcoming, but it's also an advantage in many situation. Remote X for example is a great thing.
The biggest problem is all the applications that are currently written for X. You can't rewrite everything, and it is not even worth it. Really. X is working fine, and it's getting better. The same goes for the drivers, and everything that's already in.
And if Google Chrome OS's windowing system doesn't support the X protocol, I can assure you I won't be using it.
Forgetting to put the href in the link to the most important physics news in the century is like forgetting to put your weenie in the most beautiful^W^Wonly girl that shared her company with you.
The article doesn't mention where the array would be put, but if it is in low earth orbit, it wouldn't be illuminated all night. Also, that's not exactly .0000008% extra energy, because it would be blocking the same light from reaching the Earth. Not all of it is reaching the Earth, so it is a bit more effective, but putting on solar array in LEO is just a more efficient than putting it on the grou.... Wait, what's that about launch costs and beaming the energy to Earth that you mentioned?
At some point in the future we would hopefully be gathering a lot of our power in space. Whether it would be solar panels, or cultivation farms, it doesn't matter. But if you put them all in the LEO, you wouldn't win much. To put things into perspective: Covering all of the Earth with solar panels in LEO would:
1) Block 100% of the light reaching us
2) Increase the surface area of the panels at most twice
3) Increase the light received per square meter because of the lack of atmosphere at most two-three times
And that excludes the costs of keeping the arrays. This is why these are almost pointless.
However, they are a good thing, because they are one step forward in both space affairs and energy production. They might or they might not help us put energy gathering facilities in higher orbits, Lagrangian points, etc. You could put solar panels, cultivation farms and so on the counterweights of your space elevators in geostatic orbit, and on the moon, and at L1. Then you transport the crops from there to here, and beam the energy down. Sounds easy. :P
If you don't find what you see on the picture you've linked impressive, something is wrong with you.
Of course, that's just a drawing, so it's still just vaporware.
And if you weren't responsible for the fatal accident, he would have been right. The problem is not that somebody caused a fatal accident, but because they were fucking reckless, and were texting while driving, which they shouldn't do.
No, he's not. Read what he said. He used the world "children". "Children" not only includes people under 12-13, but also refers to them. I also might agree that there are types of "voluntary pedophilia" that aren't harmful to the child. But he isn't talking about them, it's obvious that he means "sex with a child". This has been shown to be harmful in various studies. Did Stallman do some research before making such statements?
Even if the studies misinterpretted the results, or their assumptions don't apply to his case (e.g. all studies showing harm are based on 'involuntary' sex with a child), how can you define a "voluntary" in that case? A child might agree to do a lot of things s/he doesn't like or want. That's a child, for fuck's sake. Has Stallman ever seen one? Does he remember his own childhood? I can easily imagine how would I have felt if an adult tried to have sex with me when I was a child. I don't know if I would have 'agreed', but it would have been quite unpleasant and disgusting experience if I did.
Even if it is harmless, which doesn't seem the case, you shouldn't force anyone to have sex with you for your pleasure. And if you are talking about a child, you forced them, whether they "agreed" or didn't.
What he said would be OK if it was for young teenagers, but it is certainly not when you're talking about a child.
I agreed with most that Stallman has ever said about software freedom, but in this case he is simply out of touch, as if he is living in another universe. And this isn't the first time.
Not everybody is aware of the "Microsoft's standard behaviour", and not everybody is realizing it is an issue. So FSF are starting a campaign that raises awareness of the issues. It might have wasted _your_ time, but that doesn't matter. It's not aimed at you.
I'm not sure if that's worth a bug report. A video tag is different from a plugin, which is for some kind of unknown object. The plugin has it's own controls, which Mozilla can't hide, and also Mozilla can't control the playback inside of it, so the plugin _can't_ be utilized for the video tag, as much as I wish it could.
My anecdote might be interesting and funny, but it isn't fixable. Unless, of course, there are changes in the plugin architecture (adding support for video plugins) and (or) in the plugins themselves.
Just because it can work on any surface it doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Ewwww!
At least nobody claims to have tried if it would work on the surface of their swimming pool.
Firefox doesn't show the video because it doesn't support H264. It's funny, because if you have a plugin for the H264 format installed, it still doesn't show the video. But if you right-click on it and select "Show video" from the menu, it opens it in a new window, where it is playing just fine.
Trying to destruct a drive while the plates are spinning and the disk is open can be dangerous. I've done it a few times, but recently there are some manufacturers that make the plates from glass, and the glass can easily be crused if you do something to the plates while they're spinning, or you spin them too fast. I knew a kid who had been injured by hitting a glass plate of a hard drive while it was spinning.
He has a less chance to recover any data than if it was shot with a shotgun, as suggested by the article. I'm unconvinced that data can be retrieved back after the drive has been written with zeroes ones, much less that there are much people on Slashdot who would ever work with a hard drive that will end up at the good forensic IT guy, but for them there are better erasing programs. Certainly better than a shotgun, which might leave huge parts of the plates intact, if you don't shoot it enough times.
And after you shred the disk with the blender, don't forget to try to return it to get your money back.
Write zeros. Once. Problem solved. Then you can sell the disk.
Physical destruction is only necessary if the disk is already broken, and you can't erase it properly.
They are just giving time to Amazon's EC2/S3 to get compliant.
Your idea is interesting, mostly because a lot less people would switch their ISP because you blocked their access to EMI, Sony, Universal or Warner, than would if you blocked their access to The Pirate Bay.
How is KolibriOS "based on" Menuet, given than the former is GPL, and the latter is under a proprietary license? Their history page seems empty, and the only description I found on their page is in Russian, which I'm not good in.