To be fair, the argument that is always made in discussions about this topic is that that is in fact not theft, but copyright infringement. Let us remain impartial here, and not use one or the other interpretation depending on what is most convenient.
You manage to post a link to http://kernel.org/ (where the details of the breach have been described in the news section), and then another one to some third party site (thehackernews.com), where all they do is repost the exact same information?
You have got to be freaking kidding me! Consider the following:
The court rules that Mr. X is not guilty on 666 counts of torture, rape and murder, simply because he's been torturing, raping and murdering for so long.
I may be exaggerating a bit, but the above seems to be analogous to your idea of "this is nothing new, so just ignore it".
At the risk of getting a few "whoosh" comments, let me explain this to you (and anyone else that doesn't know about websockets): your browser requests a websocket from the server, which responds with an address it can connect to. Once connected to this address, your browser and the remote server can exchange anything over a regular full-duplex TCP channel, effectively bypassing all the HTTP limitations. Look here for more information.
network bandwidth (for example, 6 Mbit/s or 50 kB/s)
disk sizes (for example, 500 GB hard drive or 4.7 GB DVD)
Use base-2 for:
RAM sizes (for example, 2 GiB RAM)
For file sizes there are two possibilities:
Show both, base-10 and base-2 (in this order). An example is the Linux kernel: "2930277168 512-byte hardware sectors: (1.50 TB/1.36 TiB)"
Only show base-10, or give the user the opportunity to decide between base-10 and base-2 (the default must be base-10).
Exception
The application can keep their previous behavior for backwards compatibility if the following points apply. The application may add an option to display the sizes in base-10, too.
is a command-line tool
is often parsed by machine (for example, the output is used in scripts)
only the prefix is displayed and not the unit (for example, M instead of MB)
Some applications which fall under this rule are:
df
du
ls
This basically means that they won't actually be changing anything important (like the semantics of the stat() system call). This only means that lots of graphical applications will eventually display data sizes correctly, as defined by the displayed SI prefix. Though it may be confusing to users of multiple operating systems at first, Ubuntu is doing the right thing. It'll stop being confusing when other distros follow their lead.
If you know what the difference between the KB and KiB prefixes, then it doesn't matter. If you don't know, it doesn't matter either. Right?
This makes me want a Nokia N900 even more. I'm desperate for one. Unfortunately, these things cost a shitload of money (even on ebay, I can't find one cheaper than about $520). This thing has WIFI, which is all I really need, but if I decide to get one with a plan, I'll be robbed blind because there's no way to get one without an online plan that costs $10/month. Mobile phone service providers need to stop robbing us.
Frankly, I find this whole business revolting. Several large countries are working on a framework for lawmaking, which would eventually turn into laws all citizens aren't supposed to break.
The problem with this (and laws in general) is that no single citizen has any idea how not to break the law anymore. Furthermore, I was under the impression that lawmaking within democracies is supposed to be a process where every voting citizen has a say in, directly or indirectly.These ACTA negotiations are essentially about making laws noone but the big shots really want to be enforced.
To summarize: I believe these negotiations to be utterly and completely undemocratic, unethical and criminal.
When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account, the results were strange -- most of the users' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all, not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder. (Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user?
Perhaps to avoid an infinite loop of auto-replying between two compromised hotmail accounts?
If it relied on the project to begin with, that means it already had the features you needed most, in which case progress (although pleasant) is unnecessary.
Yes, because requirements never change over time; runtime environments never change over time; business needs never change over time; the software that you installed 20 years ago should be good enough for you today, by god - because why would you install it at all if it didn't have the features you needed most?
FOSS projects say, "If any of that stuff changes, here's the source, go fix it yourself as technology, runtimes, and requirements change." This freedom is GREAT for technology-literate people. For a small plumbing business that wants to build a customer database and a web site, it makes no sense to hire a team of developers. And so they do the sensible and cost-effective thing: purchase commercial solutions, where somebody who has expertise in development builds and supports the software so they can focus on their area of expertise: Plumbing.
Whether it's a closed-source commercial product you're buying a copy of, or a FOSS project you're buying "support and consultation" for, the fact remains that "finish it yourself if you want" is not a viable option for a large cross-section of businesses, and so is not really a selling point in the eyes of those businesses. Technologists ignore or oversimplify this point frequently here on slashdot, and the blithe assumption that "anybody with half a brain can pick up the source code for MySQL and hammer out the DB features they need," always amuses.
I agree with you. And I didn't mean to suggest to just do the developing yourself. However, when — as a business or otherwise — you rely on an open source project, you should be aware that since you're not exactly a client (or boss) of the people doing the developing, you really shouldn't expect any kind of support. Features you'd like to see may or may not be implemented, but that's all up to whoever is spending time developing said project. You basically have three choices: see if you can get the development team of that project to implement the features you need (knowing full well that it may never happen), do it yourself if you have the ability or just accept the fact that you have no influence over where the project is headed.
So what I'm saying is: I definitely understand why businesses (or individuals) who rely heavily on a piece of software would decide to go with a commercial product, where you know you'll get support if you need it, and where your requests are seen as more than mere suggestions.
Yes the wheels DO turn a little slower in larger companies, but it's better then the wheels not turning at all as happens when the OSS project your business was relying on goes dark because the main dev lost interest.
If your business is relying on an OSS project and it gets in a pickle because the project goes dead, then I don't understand. If it relied on the project to begin with, that means it already had the features you needed most, in which case progress (although pleasant) is unnecessary. Besides, you would have the option of forking the project and finishing it yourself! Unlike when you gotta go out and buy a "new" version of a game because some big company decided its customers didn't need to play that game online anymore...
Stop overreacting.
There are three kind of people when it comes to what they first think when they see an article like this:
the kind that thinks it's about protecting the young (prepubescent) kids.
They tend to agree with the proposed measures, and they usually get upset when someone of the second category is upset about restricting the "kids" they think the article refers to
the kind that thinks it's about restricting the right of exploring and learning the world around them teenagers should have
They tend to disagree with the proposed measures, and they usually get upset when someone of the first category is upset about them being upset about restricting the "kids" they think the article refers to (phew... that wasn't so hard now, was it?)
the kind that reads the article and gets upset when the first two categories rant.
I must admit, I'm usually in the second category. However, my point remains: chillax, bro!
Not to mention that depression may have a physiological root. For example, it is very well possible for your brain to not secrete a normal amount of serotonin. Or perhaps perhaps the receptors for this neurotransmitter (or another) don't function well. Here's a (perhaps unauthoritative) reference: Monoamine hypothesis.
What I'm trying to say is this: depression itself may be treatable, but the underlying cause of depression (which in that case would be a symptom) may not. Anecdote: my father has been diagnosed with depression, and he's been on medication for at least a decade now.
While I see the point that you're trying to make - I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested. Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?
To be honest, I think being able to go down to my local police station, saying "My house got broken into this weekend, could you guys check the tapes" would be WAY more convenient then the quote unquote "inconvenience" of being watched.
What pray-tell, directly disadvantages the average citizen if they were to be watched at all times?
Your point of view is that if you're innocent, you shouldn't mind having every single bit of privacy taken away. This really pisses me off, as it is tantamount to saying someone is guilty simply by virtue of desiring privacy. Just imagine applying this exact same way of thinking to criminal law: you are guilty until proven innocent.
Doesn't speech recognition software require you to train them before using it? I'm asking because if you let the person with a speech impairment train the software, said software won't know whether what's been said has been done so with clarity.
How did this get modded as a troll? This friend simply is/was a douchebag. Instead of stabbing people in the back like that, he could've simply refused to hand out his work. As a matter of fact, besides being a douchebag, I'd also call him a kissass.
[...] its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
Well, then I recommend you read Rant by Chuck Palahniuk.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, the argument that is always made in discussions about this topic is that that is in fact not theft, but copyright infringement. Let us remain impartial here, and not use one or the other interpretation depending on what is most convenient.
over 200 can be expressed as a multiple of 12! In fact, more than 200 can potentially be 17 dozens!
You manage to post a link to http://kernel.org/ (where the details of the breach have been described in the news section), and then another one to some third party site (thehackernews.com), where all they do is repost the exact same information?
Password:
Notice how /. scrubbed my password out of my post? That's awesome! You should try it.
the TSA should implement a "do not molest" list.
As a lonely and horny slashdotter, I would like to opt out of that one.
You have got to be freaking kidding me! Consider the following:
The court rules that Mr. X is not guilty on 666 counts of torture, rape and murder, simply because he's been torturing, raping and murdering for so long.
I may be exaggerating a bit, but the above seems to be analogous to your idea of "this is nothing new, so just ignore it".
At the risk of getting a few "whoosh" comments, let me explain this to you (and anyone else that doesn't know about websockets): your browser requests a websocket from the server, which responds with an address it can connect to. Once connected to this address, your browser and the remote server can exchange anything over a regular full-duplex TCP channel, effectively bypassing all the HTTP limitations. Look here for more information.
Correct basis
Use base-10 for:
Use base-2 for:
For file sizes there are two possibilities:
Exception
The application can keep their previous behavior for backwards compatibility if the following points apply. The application may add an option to display the sizes in base-10, too.
Some applications which fall under this rule are:
This basically means that they won't actually be changing anything important (like the semantics of the stat() system call). This only means that lots of graphical applications will eventually display data sizes correctly, as defined by the displayed SI prefix. Though it may be confusing to users of multiple operating systems at first, Ubuntu is doing the right thing. It'll stop being confusing when other distros follow their lead.
If you know what the difference between the KB and KiB prefixes, then it doesn't matter. If you don't know, it doesn't matter either. Right?
And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?
I don't get it, how exactly do you get from "600 feet under solid Antarctic ice" to "beneath Earth's oceans"?
This makes me want a Nokia N900 even more. I'm desperate for one. Unfortunately, these things cost a shitload of money (even on ebay, I can't find one cheaper than about $520). This thing has WIFI, which is all I really need, but if I decide to get one with a plan, I'll be robbed blind because there's no way to get one without an online plan that costs $10/month. Mobile phone service providers need to stop robbing us.
Does "pretty much anything else" include IE5?
Frankly, I find this whole business revolting. Several large countries are working on a framework for lawmaking, which would eventually turn into laws all citizens aren't supposed to break.
The problem with this (and laws in general) is that no single citizen has any idea how not to break the law anymore. Furthermore, I was under the impression that lawmaking within democracies is supposed to be a process where every voting citizen has a say in, directly or indirectly.These ACTA negotiations are essentially about making laws noone but the big shots really want to be enforced.
To summarize: I believe these negotiations to be utterly and completely undemocratic, unethical and criminal.
When I mailed all the users again from my Hotmail account, the results were strange -- most of the users' accounts sent back no auto-reply at all, not even a reply that got routed to my junk folder. (Why would Hotmail accounts not send an auto-reply in response to a message from a Hotmail user?
Perhaps to avoid an infinite loop of auto-replying between two compromised hotmail accounts?
Yes, because requirements never change over time; runtime environments never change over time; business needs never change over time; the software that you installed 20 years ago should be good enough for you today, by god - because why would you install it at all if it didn't have the features you needed most?
FOSS projects say, "If any of that stuff changes, here's the source, go fix it yourself as technology, runtimes, and requirements change." This freedom is GREAT for technology-literate people. For a small plumbing business that wants to build a customer database and a web site, it makes no sense to hire a team of developers. And so they do the sensible and cost-effective thing: purchase commercial solutions, where somebody who has expertise in development builds and supports the software so they can focus on their area of expertise: Plumbing.
Whether it's a closed-source commercial product you're buying a copy of, or a FOSS project you're buying "support and consultation" for, the fact remains that "finish it yourself if you want" is not a viable option for a large cross-section of businesses, and so is not really a selling point in the eyes of those businesses. Technologists ignore or oversimplify this point frequently here on slashdot, and the blithe assumption that "anybody with half a brain can pick up the source code for MySQL and hammer out the DB features they need," always amuses.
I agree with you. And I didn't mean to suggest to just do the developing yourself. However, when — as a business or otherwise — you rely on an open source project, you should be aware that since you're not exactly a client (or boss) of the people doing the developing, you really shouldn't expect any kind of support. Features you'd like to see may or may not be implemented, but that's all up to whoever is spending time developing said project. You basically have three choices: see if you can get the development team of that project to implement the features you need (knowing full well that it may never happen), do it yourself if you have the ability or just accept the fact that you have no influence over where the project is headed.
So what I'm saying is: I definitely understand why businesses (or individuals) who rely heavily on a piece of software would decide to go with a commercial product, where you know you'll get support if you need it, and where your requests are seen as more than mere suggestions.
Yes the wheels DO turn a little slower in larger companies, but it's better then the wheels not turning at all as happens when the OSS project your business was relying on goes dark because the main dev lost interest.
If your business is relying on an OSS project and it gets in a pickle because the project goes dead, then I don't understand. If it relied on the project to begin with, that means it already had the features you needed most, in which case progress (although pleasant) is unnecessary. Besides, you would have the option of forking the project and finishing it yourself! Unlike when you gotta go out and buy a "new" version of a game because some big company decided its customers didn't need to play that game online anymore...
There are three kind of people when it comes to what they first think when they see an article like this:
They tend to agree with the proposed measures, and they usually get upset when someone of the second category is upset about restricting the "kids" they think the article refers to
They tend to disagree with the proposed measures, and they usually get upset when someone of the first category is upset about them being upset about restricting the "kids" they think the article refers to (phew... that wasn't so hard now, was it?)
I must admit, I'm usually in the second category. However, my point remains: chillax, bro!
Not to mention that depression may have a physiological root. For example, it is very well possible for your brain to not secrete a normal amount of serotonin. Or perhaps perhaps the receptors for this neurotransmitter (or another) don't function well. Here's a (perhaps unauthoritative) reference: Monoamine hypothesis.
What I'm trying to say is this: depression itself may be treatable, but the underlying cause of depression (which in that case would be a symptom) may not. Anecdote: my father has been diagnosed with depression, and he's been on medication for at least a decade now.
What you describe is pretty much how the linux kernel handles system calls. See this: How system calls work on linux/i86
For an example of what a single instruction CPU might look like, take a look at this: Building the Turing complete coffee machine: an adequate assembly langauge
While I see the point that you're trying to make - I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested. Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?
To be honest, I think being able to go down to my local police station, saying "My house got broken into this weekend, could you guys check the tapes" would be WAY more convenient then the quote unquote "inconvenience" of being watched.
What pray-tell, directly disadvantages the average citizen if they were to be watched at all times?
Your point of view is that if you're innocent, you shouldn't mind having every single bit of privacy taken away. This really pisses me off, as it is tantamount to saying someone is guilty simply by virtue of desiring privacy. Just imagine applying this exact same way of thinking to criminal law: you are guilty until proven innocent.
Or chat/IM using Dragon Speaking Naturally.
Doesn't speech recognition software require you to train them before using it? I'm asking because if you let the person with a speech impairment train the software, said software won't know whether what's been said has been done so with clarity.
How did this get modded as a troll? This friend simply is/was a douchebag. Instead of stabbing people in the back like that, he could've simply refused to hand out his work. As a matter of fact, besides being a douchebag, I'd also call him a kissass.
[...] its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
Well, then I recommend you read Rant by Chuck Palahniuk.
An onomatopeia comes to mind: whooooosh!
I don't know what's worse - the possibility that he could be so naive...
This is as good a time as ever to let you know that Neelie Kroes is a woman
Yes, I know you can turn all that shit off in windows, but why do I have to?
Well, that's because the lowest common denominator in the group of windows users actually is ... wait for it... the enormous retard!