What makes you think your digital trust chain will be in any way enforcable in a nation that has collapsed so far that it doesn't even have a "proper land registry"?
In that situation, a gun would be far more useful than some bits on a computer somewhere. And that's only if someone else doesn't have bigger and/or more guns.
BTW, Nakamoto didn't invent the idea of decentralised trust chains. He borrowed the idea from existing public key encryption.
In related news, Charles Ponzi has been nominated for a posthumous Nobel prize in Economics for similarly exciting and novel ways of thinking about investment, albeit without the "with a computer" aspect.
That's just fucking stupid - a link is a reference, not a copy.
If you can't reference copyrighted works, nobody can legally say "I read **CENSORED** the other day, it was great". Similarly, movie reviews would be banned. and telling people about newspaper or magazine articles they read. and lots of other everyday fair-use references to copyrighted works.
They shouldn't be called, or call themselves, Engineers unless they actually have an engineering degree and are a member of the appropriate national engineering organisation.
ditto for "architect".
This was settled decades ago, long before programmers started big-noting themselves with professional titles they don't deserve - in many countries it is illegal to call yourself an engineer or architect (or doctor or lawyer etc) without both the qualification AND the membership in the relevant association.
I doubt if many of the people who object to systemd have any problem at all with it as an init system. As init, it's fine. In fact, it's even good (but so is upstart or openrc. or even sysvinit, with all it's minor flaws).
It's everything else that systemd is borging that is the problem. Dozens of low-level system functions (like logging, udev, logging-in, session management, console, network setup, time sync, cron, and many more) that have no business being in an init daemon are being taken over by systemd - and the systemd implementations tend to be half-arsed and incomplete and only suitable for the simplest of cases that the systemd authors have personally experienced.
if systemd devs had limited its functionality to just providing a better init system, it wouldn't be in the least bit controversial...for the same reason that neither upstart nor openrc were controversial. they did one job and did it well.
people might have complained about bugs in openrc or upstart, or annoyances about the way they worked. but nobody objected to them in principle.
> Mind you few people will ever say a system is easier if that system > is new and requires them to read a man page. Change is never easy.
Many people change when the new tool is better, even if it requires learning new ways of doing things. Many new and improved tools make a serious effort at backwards-compatiblity to make the transition easier (systemd does not do this). That's why, for example, many people switched from syslogd to rsyslog or syslog-ng. why many changed from ncsa or cern httpd to apache. why many changed from csh to posix sh (or bash or ksh or zsh). Many of these people who have gone through all these changes and more are the same people complaining about systemd, so their objection is clearly not because they are afraid of or too lazy to change.
> The only acid test would be sitting a few people who've not used > linux before in front of both systems. Then you can determine > which system is easier to administrate.
you are making the classic mistake of confusing 'easy to learn' with 'easy to use'. nano is an easy to learn editor, but hard to use for complex editing tasks. vi is moderately hard to learn but extremely easy to use once you've learnt a few basic things about it.
It's entirely normal to send encrypted mail that is encrypted so that only the recipient key(s) can decrypt it and not the sender key.
In fact, with PGP and gnupg you have to go out of your way (i.e. use a special config option or command-line option) to encrypt a file so that the key used to encrypt the file or message can also decrypt it.
but the depressing knowledge that upgrades often carry unwanted malware like more code designed to spy on you or take control of YOUR property so that apple/oracle/adobe/etc have more control over your computer than you do.
It's not THE solution all by itself, but open source is an essential part of the solution.
A GPL-v3 style anti-tivoization clause is necessary too, otherwise you can't verify that the published source is actually what is running on the device.
yeah, people go to the doctor for a cough and find out that they have a serious disease and get it treated properly rather than assume it's a simple cold and spread it around to everyone they come in contact with.
i remember the good old days when newspaper inspectors used to roam the trains and if they found anyone skipping the ads, they'd inject them with ebola and rip the articles out of the paper.
That's the cue for a whole bunch of entitled, misogynist fuckwits to whinge loudly about how *their* filetype extension has been stolen from them by the evil feminists and SJWs. the end of the world is nigh.
It's my computer, my browser, my bandwidth - *I* get to decide how it's used, no-one else does.
btw, one of my absolutely required needs is "blocking specific types of content (such as advertising)", and javascript.
another of my needs is to have my browser modify or override bits of CSS (e.g. fonts, font sizes, div widths, etc) so that the content actually displays on my screen in a form that is readable by my eyes.
Because there's really no comparison between btrfs and ZFS. ZFS is years ahead in both stability and features. Only someone who's never used both would say that they are in any way close.
The only really useful thing that btrfs does that ZFS does not is rebalancing - that's a great feature and i'd love to see it in ZFS (but it will probably never get there).
ZFS has lots of features that btrfs doesn't have and likely never will.
This will probably blow your tiny little black & white, subtlety-incapable mind, but by blocking the ability to remove other people's freedoms wrt the software, the GPL's restrictions are limitations that actually increase overall freedom.
it's like by subtracting one they end up adding a billion and more.
wow, crazy and mind-blowing, huh? it's almost as if the FSF had a goal and knew what they needed to do to achieve it and also knew what kind of loopholes they needed to close to avoid their goal being subverted by selfish arseholes like you.
Developers can have multiple goals at the same time. Some developers have the goals of both promoting a new standard and promoting Free Software (as defined by GNU).
Some developers don't want parasites like Apple or Microsoft or some groovy uber-cool startup getting the benefit of their work without an obligation to contribute back.
The GPL satisfies those goals. GPLv3 closes some loopholes in v2 that can be exploited by the unscrupulous to subvert the intent of the GPL.
that'll be great until the banksters on wall street walk away with your money, your investment is worthless, and then they whine at the government to get compensated a trillion or two for the inconvenience of stealing your money from you.
Linux isn't a *bad* choice for gamers these days. Windows is still better for games - not because they work better but because there are more games available - but Linux isn't bad.
There are many games available natively for linux, e.g. from gog or steam or the humble bundles. Many more will run perfectly well in wine - *most* windows games do. *some* games won't run at all on linux, either natively or with wine.
I'm a linux user who spent many years running windows game in wine, then built myself a Win7 box out of spare parts about 5 years ago (after upgrading my main linux box) just to play the windows games i'd bought on steam that wouldn't run in wine - i bought an ATEN kvm switch so i can share the keyboard, mouse, and monitor. I do most of my gaming on that windows box now, but am thinking of turning it into a steam box.
I use that win7 box for *nothing* but gaming, I rarely even open a web browser on it, just run the steam client and games. I don't even buy the steam games on it (i buy them in a web browser on my linux machine) because there's no way i'll ever trust a windows machine with my credit card or paypal account or any of my financial details.
I have no interest at all in upgrading to win10 or letting microsoft spy on me....microsoft's repeated attempts to force that shit on me is just making the idea of converting that box to a steam machine far more attractive: Linux + Steam + Wine will suffice for 95+% of my gaming "needs" - and i've bought hundreds of steam games over the years (some of which i haven't even got around to playing yet) so i can just ignore the remaining 5%.
ps: why don't i just install the steam client on my main linux machine and play games there? i have done so, but i don't play games on it often because game devs are morons who will happily write code that crashes the machine - i don't give a damn if my win7 game console crashes and has to be rebooted, but i really don't want to have to reboot my linux box and lose months worth of "context" in opened windows and running apps.
We've just become lazy in our writing. Despite the huge increase in short bursts of written communication, we don't tend to spend much time on even slightly longer bits of written communication.
yes, this exactly. lazy writers have shifted the burden of comprehension onto readers - instead of putting in the effort to clearly express what they are thinking/saying/feeling, they use a handful of inscrutable icons with ill-defined meanings...leaving it up to the reader to a) try to identify what that bizarre little picture is supposed to be, b) what it means in general, and c) what it means in the current context.
what, for example, does a sad face next to a duck mean? does it mean "i don't like ducks", "my duck just died", "a duck just shat on my head", "haha! duck-lips photos suck!" or something else entirely? it does not clearly express anything, just (possibly) something sad (possibly) involving a duck or perhaps another bird but duck was the closest picture i could remember or find quickly or perhaps something whimsically represented by a duck-like picture.
where no actual meaning has been conveyed, there is no actual communication.
if you want to communicate, it's up to you to do so clearly...not just scribble some inscrutable gibberish and expect your reader to figure it out. this is true no matter how simple or complex the thing you are trying to communicate.
words, by way of contrast, are a) easy to distinguish from other words, and b) have fixed meanings and don't require a great deal of interpretation (that doesn't mean ONE meaning per word, as words can have nuanced meanings, but a small number of meanings. the correct or most appropriate meaning can *easily* be deduced from the context)
communication involving hieroglyphs, ideographs, icons etc sucks because it is extremely difficult to understand what is meant (thus defeating its own purpose) and requires an enormous memory for the meanings of slightly different-looking pictures.
there's a reason why literacy is so much more difficult and uncommon in China - you aren't literate until you've memorised thousands upon thousands of different symbols and combinations of them. compare this to having to memorise roughly 20-50 different symbols (depending on the language - e.g most variants of the roman alphabet have 20-30 characters, while devanagari has 47) for the sounds/letters of the words. in both cases, you still have to know the words you're trying to write but in the latter you can write *ANY* words with just 20-50 symbols while in the former you can only write the words you have previously memorised.
in part, this has been deliberate - an illiterate peasant class is an uneducated peasant class and easier to control. the poor do not have the luxury of time or the money required to learn a skill that is nearly useless for their daily lives
democracy depends upon a literate and educated population, which is one of the reasons why the dumbing down of the population should be resisted in whatever form it takes (and that includes emoji and the over-dependence on short "messages" as a substitute for long-form writing)
i can, and did, figure that out for myself. as you say, it wasn't hard. comprehension seems to be difficult for you, though, so i'll spell it out:
a) 60% is nowhere near the 498% pixel rate increase of 240->560ti b) the cheapest GTX 960 in.au is around $280. 4GB versions cost around $350 c) a 60% increase in performance for $280 is not worth it. d) still waiting...
as i said, "when i upgrade again i want a similar increase in performance for about the same price."
i'll settle for anything at least 2-3x better for around $250-$300.
> And if you must have more performance, this is over twice as > fast as your GTX 560 Ti, and is only $300.
a) twice as fast is good but still not a 500% increase.
b) the Gigabyte GTX 970 GV-N970IXOC-4GD costs over $500 in australia, not $300. if it cost only $300 here, i might consider it as being a "just barely worth it" upgrade for the price.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think your digital trust chain will be in any way enforcable in a nation that has collapsed so far that it doesn't even have a "proper land registry"?
In that situation, a gun would be far more useful than some bits on a computer somewhere. And that's only if someone else doesn't have bigger and/or more guns.
BTW, Nakamoto didn't invent the idea of decentralised trust chains. He borrowed the idea from existing public key encryption.
In related news, Charles Ponzi has been nominated for a posthumous Nobel prize in Economics for similarly exciting and novel ways of thinking about investment, albeit without the "with a computer" aspect.
That's just fucking stupid - a link is a reference, not a copy.
If you can't reference copyrighted works, nobody can legally say "I read **CENSORED** the other day, it was great". Similarly, movie reviews would be banned. and telling people about newspaper or magazine articles they read. and lots of other everyday fair-use references to copyrighted works.
They shouldn't be called, or call themselves, Engineers unless they actually have an engineering degree and are a member of the appropriate national engineering organisation.
ditto for "architect".
This was settled decades ago, long before programmers started big-noting themselves with professional titles they don't deserve - in many countries it is illegal to call yourself an engineer or architect (or doctor or lawyer etc) without both the qualification AND the membership in the relevant association.
Illegal, but not enforced often these days.
I doubt if many of the people who object to systemd have any problem at all with it as an init system. As init, it's fine. In fact, it's even good (but so is upstart or openrc. or even sysvinit, with all it's minor flaws).
It's everything else that systemd is borging that is the problem. Dozens of low-level system functions (like logging, udev, logging-in, session management, console, network setup, time sync, cron, and many more) that have no business being in an init daemon are being taken over by systemd - and the systemd implementations tend to be half-arsed and incomplete and only suitable for the simplest of cases that the systemd authors have personally experienced.
if systemd devs had limited its functionality to just providing a better init system, it wouldn't be in the least bit controversial...for the same reason that neither upstart nor openrc were controversial. they did one job and did it well.
people might have complained about bugs in openrc or upstart, or annoyances about the way they worked. but nobody objected to them in principle.
> Mind you few people will ever say a system is easier if that system
> is new and requires them to read a man page. Change is never easy.
Many people change when the new tool is better, even if it requires learning new ways of doing things. Many new and improved tools make a serious effort at backwards-compatiblity to make the transition easier (systemd does not do this). That's why, for example, many people switched from syslogd to rsyslog or syslog-ng. why many changed from ncsa or cern httpd to apache. why many changed from csh to posix sh (or bash or ksh or zsh). Many of these people who have gone through all these changes and more are the same people complaining about systemd, so their objection is clearly not because they are afraid of or too lazy to change.
> The only acid test would be sitting a few people who've not used
> linux before in front of both systems. Then you can determine
> which system is easier to administrate.
you are making the classic mistake of confusing 'easy to learn' with 'easy to use'. nano is an easy to learn editor, but hard to use for complex editing tasks. vi is moderately hard to learn but extremely easy to use once you've learnt a few basic things about it.
It's entirely normal to send encrypted mail that is encrypted so that only the recipient key(s) can decrypt it and not the sender key.
In fact, with PGP and gnupg you have to go out of your way (i.e. use a special config option or command-line option) to encrypt a file so that the key used to encrypt the file or message can also decrypt it.
With gnupg, that's the encrypt_to option.
but the depressing knowledge that upgrades often carry unwanted malware like more code designed to spy on you or take control of YOUR property so that apple/oracle/adobe/etc have more control over your computer than you do.
It's not THE solution all by itself, but open source is an essential part of the solution.
A GPL-v3 style anti-tivoization clause is necessary too, otherwise you can't verify that the published source is actually what is running on the device.
how ironic. an *american* calling someone stupid, misinformed and ignorant.
especially ironic when the topic is health care.
yeah, people go to the doctor for a cough and find out that they have a serious disease and get it treated properly rather than assume it's a simple cold and spread it around to everyone they come in contact with.
i remember the good old days when newspaper inspectors used to roam the trains and if they found anyone skipping the ads, they'd inject them with ebola and rip the articles out of the paper.
"fuck off, we'll use postgres instead".
That's the cue for a whole bunch of entitled, misogynist fuckwits to whinge loudly about how *their* filetype extension has been stolen from them by the evil feminists and SJWs. the end of the world is nigh.
It's my computer, my browser, my bandwidth - *I* get to decide how it's used, no-one else does.
btw, one of my absolutely required needs is "blocking specific types of content (such as advertising)", and javascript.
another of my needs is to have my browser modify or override bits of CSS (e.g. fonts, font sizes, div widths, etc) so that the content actually displays on my screen in a form that is readable by my eyes.
Because there's really no comparison between btrfs and ZFS. ZFS is years ahead in both stability and features. Only someone who's never used both would say that they are in any way close.
The only really useful thing that btrfs does that ZFS does not is rebalancing - that's a great feature and i'd love to see it in ZFS (but it will probably never get there).
ZFS has lots of features that btrfs doesn't have and likely never will.
You know that line about "the customer is always right"?
well, sometimes the customer is just fucking wrong. and a moron.
This will probably blow your tiny little black & white, subtlety-incapable mind, but by blocking the ability to remove other people's freedoms wrt the software, the GPL's restrictions are limitations that actually increase overall freedom.
it's like by subtracting one they end up adding a billion and more.
wow, crazy and mind-blowing, huh? it's almost as if the FSF had a goal and knew what they needed to do to achieve it and also knew what kind of loopholes they needed to close to avoid their goal being subverted by selfish arseholes like you.
Developers can have multiple goals at the same time. Some developers have the goals of both promoting a new standard and promoting Free Software (as defined by GNU).
Some developers don't want parasites like Apple or Microsoft or some groovy uber-cool startup getting the benefit of their work without an obligation to contribute back.
The GPL satisfies those goals. GPLv3 closes some loopholes in v2 that can be exploited by the unscrupulous to subvert the intent of the GPL.
Given that the rest of the Republican candidates seem to be experts at leading lemmings off cliffs, I'd say that was a point in her favour.
that'll be great until the banksters on wall street walk away with your money, your investment is worthless, and then they whine at the government to get compensated a trillion or two for the inconvenience of stealing your money from you.
what have they done?
they've made people think that piecework and pushing all running expenses onto the worker is an acceptable way to hire people.
their driver ranking system is also a great way of undermining worker solidarity.
that's why MBA types love them - they've undone over 100 years of hard fought industrial struggle or, at least, in the process of doing so.
they're also the ultimate parasitising middle-men.
Linux isn't a *bad* choice for gamers these days. Windows is still better for games - not because they work better but because there are more games available - but Linux isn't bad.
There are many games available natively for linux, e.g. from gog or steam or the humble bundles. Many more will run perfectly well in wine - *most* windows games do. *some* games won't run at all on linux, either natively or with wine.
I'm a linux user who spent many years running windows game in wine, then built myself a Win7 box out of spare parts about 5 years ago (after upgrading my main linux box) just to play the windows games i'd bought on steam that wouldn't run in wine - i bought an ATEN kvm switch so i can share the keyboard, mouse, and monitor. I do most of my gaming on that windows box now, but am thinking of turning it into a steam box.
I use that win7 box for *nothing* but gaming, I rarely even open a web browser on it, just run the steam client and games. I don't even buy the steam games on it (i buy them in a web browser on my linux machine) because there's no way i'll ever trust a windows machine with my credit card or paypal account or any of my financial details.
I have no interest at all in upgrading to win10 or letting microsoft spy on me....microsoft's repeated attempts to force that shit on me is just making the idea of converting that box to a steam machine far more attractive: Linux + Steam + Wine will suffice for 95+% of my gaming "needs" - and i've bought hundreds of steam games over the years (some of which i haven't even got around to playing yet) so i can just ignore the remaining 5%.
ps: why don't i just install the steam client on my main linux machine and play games there? i have done so, but i don't play games on it often because game devs are morons who will happily write code that crashes the machine - i don't give a damn if my win7 game console crashes and has to be rebooted, but i really don't want to have to reboot my linux box and lose months worth of "context" in opened windows and running apps.
yes, this exactly. lazy writers have shifted the burden of comprehension onto readers - instead of putting in the effort to clearly express what they are thinking/saying/feeling, they use a handful of inscrutable icons with ill-defined meanings...leaving it up to the reader to a) try to identify what that bizarre little picture is supposed to be, b) what it means in general, and c) what it means in the current context.
what, for example, does a sad face next to a duck mean? does it mean "i don't like ducks", "my duck just died", "a duck just shat on my head", "haha! duck-lips photos suck!" or something else entirely? it does not clearly express anything, just (possibly) something sad (possibly) involving a duck or perhaps another bird but duck was the closest picture i could remember or find quickly or perhaps something whimsically represented by a duck-like picture.
where no actual meaning has been conveyed, there is no actual communication.
if you want to communicate, it's up to you to do so clearly...not just scribble some inscrutable gibberish and expect your reader to figure it out. this is true no matter how simple or complex the thing you are trying to communicate.
words, by way of contrast, are a) easy to distinguish from other words, and b) have fixed meanings and don't require a great deal of interpretation (that doesn't mean ONE meaning per word, as words can have nuanced meanings, but a small number of meanings. the correct or most appropriate meaning can *easily* be deduced from the context)
communication involving hieroglyphs, ideographs, icons etc sucks because it is extremely difficult to understand what is meant (thus defeating its own purpose) and requires an enormous memory for the meanings of slightly different-looking pictures.
there's a reason why literacy is so much more difficult and uncommon in China - you aren't literate until you've memorised thousands upon thousands of different symbols and combinations of them. compare this to having to memorise roughly 20-50 different symbols (depending on the language - e.g most variants of the roman alphabet have 20-30 characters, while devanagari has 47) for the sounds/letters of the words. in both cases, you still have to know the words you're trying to write but in the latter you can write *ANY* words with just 20-50 symbols while in the former you can only write the words you have previously memorised.
in part, this has been deliberate - an illiterate peasant class is an uneducated peasant class and easier to control. the poor do not have the luxury of time or the money required to learn a skill that is nearly useless for their daily lives
democracy depends upon a literate and educated population, which is one of the reasons why the dumbing down of the population should be resisted in whatever form it takes (and that includes emoji and the over-dependence on short "messages" as a substitute for long-form writing)
> The GTX 960 is 60% faster than your GTX 560
i can, and did, figure that out for myself. as you say, it wasn't hard. comprehension seems to be difficult for you, though, so i'll spell it out:
a) 60% is nowhere near the 498% pixel rate increase of 240->560ti .au is around $280. 4GB versions cost around $350
b) the cheapest GTX 960 in
c) a 60% increase in performance for $280 is not worth it.
d) still waiting...
as i said, "when i upgrade again i want a similar increase in performance for about the same price."
i'll settle for anything at least 2-3x better for around $250-$300.
> And if you must have more performance, this is over twice as
> fast as your GTX 560 Ti, and is only $300.
a) twice as fast is good but still not a 500% increase.
b) the Gigabyte GTX 970 GV-N970IXOC-4GD costs over $500 in australia, not $300. if it cost only $300 here, i might consider it as being a "just barely worth it" upgrade for the price.