What you're missing that that in a very short period of time both of the major window managers, Gnome and KDE, made VERY unpleasant choices. KDE has since then largely recovered, but it's still not as good as KDE3 was. (There may be good reasons under the hood, I haven't looked. But I despised the early KDE4s, and I consider the current one to be less good than was KDE3.) Unity was an alternative "really bad"(tm) choice. You don't hear people saying nice things about Gnome3, either...not without suspecting them of being shills.
This series of changes in a short period of time sensitized people to being coerced into an environment that they didn't like. So they are much readier to "bolt the herd" than they were before these shenanigans began.
It is my suspicion that the entire mess is caused by thinking that the same interface would work on both a desktop and a tablet...and a frantic tablet envy. (There seems to be evidence that the Gnome developers tried to develop for the tablet without ever even using one.)
Easy access is "My mouse breaks, so I walk down to the store and buy a replacement.", not "I think my mouse might break, so I order one so I'll have it just in case.". I've tried the second way and ended up with a bunch of mice that required ps2 connectors. And I had to store them myself.
Actually KDE3 was better than KDE4 is yet. But KDE4 is now nearly as good as Gnome2.
Perhaps I should look again into LXDE. And I guess XFCE. And this time with a user that only has one gui installed. (There seems to be background conflict between some of them, though I never bothered to trace down exactly what the interference was.)
Currently I'm quite annoyed with Gnome, even though I never use it, because I keep getting the message: WARNING: gnome-keyring:: couldn't connect to:/home/charles/.cache/keyring-6zSSdv/pkcs11: No such file or directory with a program that I compiled, even though I have no idea WHY it would be trying to access the gnome-keyring. I'm just three steps away from uninstalling the whole thing, and risking needing to install from scratch. (But because of that risk, I'll be building an updated install DVD collection first.)
I seem to remember that there's an option to configure it to do lots of different things. Didn't want to, though, and now I can't remember where I found that option.
"flat design" is harder to use because it's harder to see the edges. OTOH, 3-d interface on a flat screen is stupid. Not just eye-candy, but stupid eye-candy.
What you need are good contrasting edges that aren't obtrusive. (And interface is what you do the work with after all.)
My main current gripe with KDE4 is that it's hard to see the edges of windows. I'm always moving (and activating) a window that's behind the window I'm intending to move. This isn't something that requires some fancy functionality, merely a sense of contrast. (OTOH, brilliant whites and darkest blacks should be avoided, because that's too much contrast.)
E.g., in my current browser there are several tabs showing. The topmost (the one controlling the active pane) is brighter than the others. But not extremely so. Perhaps 5%. This is good design. I'm a bit less thrilled by the rolling shading on the preview and submit buttons below this post (yeah, what I see isn't what you're seeing, I know) because the graded shading that makes them look slightly rounded is overkill. But it isn't bad. In compensaton, however, the edges of the buttons are less obvious. (It wouldn't work as well as a "slightly rounded cylinder" if the edges were too distinct.)
IIUC, XFCE is dependent on Gnome libraries. If Gnome devs take support for something out of their libraries, XFCE will have to work hard to keep the functionality. I believe the same is true of Cinnamon.
Mate (MATE?), OTOH, seems to be derived from the Gnome2 libraries. So if they can be maintained (a big "if" there) it's relatively secure. (They are, of course, dependent on hardware support...and if the Gnome2 libraries need a feature that the other libraries don't need... but that's on the verge of paranoid speculation.)
Apple is the vendor, so Apple is responsible. That said, I think that "mixup" is a reasonable term from Apple's point of view.
OTOH, if I'd forked over $30, and then been left at a cliff-hanger, I don't think I'd be remotely satisfied with "OK, we'll let you try this again with a different show".
IOW, I don't think that Apple is being malicious here, rather the producer (AMC?). But I also don't feel that the proposed restitution is sufficient. And I don't feel that Apple is living up to their responsibilities as a vendor.
Fortunately, I'm a bystander. After I read the EULA that they attached to a security upgrade a bit over a decade ago I stopped buying or using Apple products. (I'd stopped buying or using MS a few years earlier over the instalation EULA.)
The terms I'll put up with on entertainment are quite different from the terms that I'll put up with on tools.
Revolutions never succeed without the support of at least SOME of the upper classes. When they succeed, they usually create a government that is worse than the one they replace.
Note that Revolutions are different from expulsion of foreign rulers, which is what the US.1776.revolution was. And what the US.Civil War.1865 attempted unsuccessfully to be. Also note that the 1776 revolution was only possible with the support of the French government. And LONG lines of communication and supply. Even so it was a close thing.
OTOH, I am aware that I don't know much about the popular feeling. Only a few people in a small local area. And I don't trust the media to even lie consistently, so they're no help. So I could be quite wrong about how much people dislike the government. Distain seems to be coming from every corner of the political spectrum (NOT a one dimensional framework, but multidimensional...and still distain from every corner), but this is unreliable. People who are unhappy are always louder than those who are content.
He's probably gotten it confused with attempts to get people to sign the Declaration of Independence, which are frequently harassed and shut down. Occasionally there are news reports about it. (It's a *much* more subversive document than is the Constitution.)
P.S.: This has occasionally been ruled illegal even in public spaces (as opposed to private areas, which most college and university campuses are). I don't believe, however, than any conviction has ever been obtained except for something like trespass or "creating a public nuisance".
It's not clear that they ever throw ANYTHING away, no matter how illegal it is. For that matter, I don't know how a secret agency could even attempt to prove that, but that they can't prove it doesn't make it true.
If they claim to have been acting legally, I won't believe them. There's too much evidence to the contrary. If they claim to have been "just doing my job", then not only are they (unindicted) criminals, they are being directed by (unindicetd, probably) criminals.
If what they claim is that "we can get away with this", then I sorrowfully admit that they're probably telling the truth.
The problem is, not only can't they prove me wrong, but it would be illegal for them to do so. Which doesn't mean that I'm right or wrong, in and of itself, but combined with human nature the odds favor my being correct. When illegal acts don't have consequences, people tend to ignore the laws. Combining that with various pieces of information that have been made public (some of which, admittedly, is on the level of mere assertion, but some of which isn't) the odds are pretty high that my assment is correct.
It's pretty certain that I would never trust an assertion that a US hosted carrier was secure, or that a US endorsed encryption was secure. Fortunately, I'm not personally worried about that. I'm much more worried about indirect effects. E.g., other countries will no longer trust US standards, protocols, or communications. This will have an extremely negative effect over the long term. (Never mind that they aren't any better. That's irrelevant to how much trust they should place in US sponsored, hosted, or endorsed companies or technologies.)
The journalists don't tell you how it's done, because they don't understand the explanations. This isn't being a gatekeeper. This is being a "narrow passage".
P.S.:
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
You don't even *need* all that, unless you really need security. If you just really don't want to be snooped on, a diversity of communication channels makes it more difficult to monitor all of them, so it decreases the probability of any one communication being snooped on. Which is why the G.P..s reference to fidonet was reasonable.
OTOH, this same diversity makes it difficult for you to contact a wide diversity of people. For that you need standardized approaches, like e-mail and web pages (depending on how targeted you want to be, and how you target).
P.S.: It's already been suggested that one might use actions in a game as a protocol layer for the transmission of messages. This would be a bit difficult to implement, and you might need to choose the game carefully, but... And more practical is steganography applied to porno movies. If nothing else the package should serve as a distraction from the message. (And if you're doing that, be sure to include some bursts of noise in the message, so they'll be sure to study the package carefully.)
Did these acts take place in Britain, or on the continent? I don't think that British law can legalize something that's illegal in the place where it occurred, so the distinction is significant.
Not as often...but IIRC there was a period in China when the various monastic orders had their own private armies and acted like warlords. Eventually the central government put that down, and forbid the monks to carry arms. That's when the various schools of bare handed martial arts began to evolve.
A better solution is abolishing software patents. Software should be protected by copyright and trade secrets. Patents on software is an extremely bad idea, has always been an extremely bad idea, and has just gotten worse every year since Intel first managed a moderately plausible patent. (That was actually a hardware patent if properly understood, and as a hardware patent it should have been void as trivially obvious. But because the software being burned into the ROM (FPLA?) was involved, it looked like something new. Well, the software was original, and deserved copyright protection, but not a patent. And the ROM (FPLA?) while fairly new at the time, was just being used as designed.
Actually, what he said was the the US had declared that if someone else did it to them it would be an act of war. He didn't say that this was an accurate statement.
Lavabit wasn't shutdown by the government. He shut down to avoid violating his customers trust. The government didn't WANT him to shut down, they wanted him to secretly open up.
No, he didn't. There is reasonable evidence that the government either knew, or had reason to know, about "something like" the 9/11 event before it happened. And interestingly within a couple of days they had authorizing legislation in front of congress that essentially authorized much of the current police state.
So. Maybe they knew. They definitely had reason to know, as they were informed both by FBI agents and by foreign intelligence agencies that an event was coming, and about when. The FBI even identified one or two of the pilots. (Can't remember which.) *And* they had legislation already written to present to congress.
Still, perhaps they were just planning to take advantage of the next emergency, whatever it happened to be. If so, then as well as being treasonous, they are also miseasant, perhaps malfeasant. (I consider pushing that legislation treasonous, and everyone who voted for it a traitor. Also the president who signed it. Traitor. Clear violation of the oath of office. Most of congress AND the president deserved to be impeached and convicted over that. But it was also, by my definition, treason.)
If I remember correctly, General Relativity used tensors over a 10 dimensional simplificaiton of a 16 dimensional field.
Perhaps your assertion should be reconsidered. Also we know that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are wrong, or at least incomplete, because they both make testable (and tested) predictions that they other can't generate.
One of the key words in what you said was in the last paragraph: "reported". I quote:
And if you want to see what not to do in a financial crisis, look at the central bank that steadfastly refused to print money like crazy during the recession: the European Central Bank. The result is Spain with a 26.9% unemployment rate, compared to the 7.4% just reported in the US.
Consider the significance of the word "reported". I believe the report to be quite an erroneous. And also consider that 45% of currently existing jobs are expecte to be automated by around 2020. (I, personally, think that this is an overestimation of the rate of automation, but I haven't studied it recently.) Note the article today that says robots-join-final-assembly-line-at-us-auto-plant. It could be that I'm underestimating the rate of automation.
Unemployment needs to become acceptable, and employment needs to become unnecessary for survival. But this will be difficult as there are still boring and unpleasant jobs that can't be automated. Also because many people believe that one's worth is determined by their job. Also because the tax structure is such that jobs need to be as efficient, meaning employ as few people, and coerce as much work out of them at possible. It doesn't really mean that jobs need to be made as unpleasant as possible, but many managers seem to think that it does, and while a job is necessary for (reasonable) survival, they are free to exercise power.
OTOH, one needs to realize that this is going to mean that an increasing number of people are dependent on the government for survival. With the implications that those psychotically driven by a need to control will flock from their current positions to roles in government that provide equivalent opportunities. (Not that there isn't a significant tendency in that direction already, but the current system provides them with a diffuse network of niches, and most of those would disappear.)
I don't really see a good answer, but I sure see a lot of bad ones. And the current situation isn't even meta-stable.
Time is significant. Linux was originally developed mainly by hobbyists. After awhile a few corporations started subsidizing development, first by donations of equipment, and later by actually hiring people to ensure that it would run on their hardware. The people they tended to hire were those who were already acknowledged as experienced and talented.
Currently there are still a few pure hobbyists, but most developers have commercial subsidy, or are employed by some corportion or other. (I'm including, e.g., Red Hat.) There are multiple reasons. One is that a greater proportion of currently developing programmers are less into systems work. Another is that the system has become significantly more complex. (Most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.) Etc.
OTOH, do note that new distros are still being created. But also note that they tend to be created by forking an existing popular distro. The system is currently too complex for one person, and probably for one team of people, to manage a complete general purpose distro, like Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, or Suse. Slackware seems to be a counter example to this claim, but I don't know it well enough to know that it actually is.
Also, to be accepted as a kernel developer, you need to have a track record. And that takes time and effort. There are still some specialized areas that a person can use to break in (keeping documentation current is probably still such a place), but it's a lot more difficult than it used to be, because there are so many people submitting patches. It's much easier to do that if you have someone already accepted to vouch for you, and also to lead you through the process. And, as stated, most of those are currently people paid to work on the system as their job.
So, yes, it has developed into a system largely developed by people employed by corporations. And many of them are, indeed, the same people who started out doing this as a hobby.
Remembering back to before ads...I'm not sure it would be worse, just because it was different.
It's true that in the early days there wasn't nearly as much on the internet, but in the first place that wasn't all bad, and in the second place, anything that people were interested in tended to show up.
And in the third place, ads hosted on the site, rather than distributed, tend to be much more accountable. (If the ads are too annoying, the site dies.)
Yeah. Instead you should be thinking of biochem labs with sloppy procedures. Expect that to happen in startups. And the problem probably won't be active malice (unless they're angling for a military grant, or funded by some essentially terrorist organization).
P.S.: By "terrorist organization" I don't intend to exclude either standard governments or for-profit criminal organizations thinking of "protection money". Political groups that are out of power aren't the only terrorist organizations.
Because it's not actual motion, it's the space expanding. And one of the results of that expansion is that the frequency of radiation transiting it drops. If it's beyond the observable edge (actual, not current technology) then the wave length has shifted down until the signal strength is below the noise level. Note also that as the frequency drops, the amount of information that the signal can carry per unit time drops. When it drops below the noise level, you just can't ever detect it. I think there are also a few other effects with the same result, though I'm not sure they occur at the same space-time distance.
Please note that this is an approximately uniform expansion. (That doesn't apply within galaxies, or, I think, galaxy clusters. Those aren't expanding. Rather they are the raisins in the loaf of bread. Because they are bound by gravity. But, I believe, galaxy super-clusters do expand in this way.)
OTOH, I am not a cosmologist. This is a layman's understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're missing that that in a very short period of time both of the major window managers, Gnome and KDE, made VERY unpleasant choices. KDE has since then largely recovered, but it's still not as good as KDE3 was. (There may be good reasons under the hood, I haven't looked. But I despised the early KDE4s, and I consider the current one to be less good than was KDE3.) Unity was an alternative "really bad"(tm) choice. You don't hear people saying nice things about Gnome3, either...not without suspecting them of being shills.
This series of changes in a short period of time sensitized people to being coerced into an environment that they didn't like. So they are much readier to "bolt the herd" than they were before these shenanigans began.
It is my suspicion that the entire mess is caused by thinking that the same interface would work on both a desktop and a tablet...and a frantic tablet envy. (There seems to be evidence that the Gnome developers tried to develop for the tablet without ever even using one.)
Easy access is "My mouse breaks, so I walk down to the store and buy a replacement.", not "I think my mouse might break, so I order one so I'll have it just in case.". I've tried the second way and ended up with a bunch of mice that required ps2 connectors. And I had to store them myself.
Actually KDE3 was better than KDE4 is yet. But KDE4 is now nearly as good as Gnome2.
Perhaps I should look again into LXDE. And I guess XFCE. And this time with a user that only has one gui installed. (There seems to be background conflict between some of them, though I never bothered to trace down exactly what the interference was.)
Currently I'm quite annoyed with Gnome, even though I never use it, because I keep getting the message: /home/charles/.cache/keyring-6zSSdv/pkcs11: No such file or directory
WARNING: gnome-keyring:: couldn't connect to:
with a program that I compiled, even though I have no idea WHY it would be trying to access the gnome-keyring. I'm just three steps away from uninstalling the whole thing, and risking needing to install from scratch. (But because of that risk, I'll be building an updated install DVD collection first.)
I seem to remember that there's an option to configure it to do lots of different things. Didn't want to, though, and now I can't remember where I found that option.
Scroll wheels are inherently inferior for clicking to a third button, and I never use it to scroll with.
If I had easy access to three button mice, I'd buy them. It's not bad enough, though, that I'll go far out of my way to avoid scroll wheels.
"flat design" is harder to use because it's harder to see the edges. OTOH, 3-d interface on a flat screen is stupid. Not just eye-candy, but stupid eye-candy.
What you need are good contrasting edges that aren't obtrusive. (And interface is what you do the work with after all.)
My main current gripe with KDE4 is that it's hard to see the edges of windows. I'm always moving (and activating) a window that's behind the window I'm intending to move. This isn't something that requires some fancy functionality, merely a sense of contrast. (OTOH, brilliant whites and darkest blacks should be avoided, because that's too much contrast.)
E.g., in my current browser there are several tabs showing. The topmost (the one controlling the active pane) is brighter than the others. But not extremely so. Perhaps 5%. This is good design. I'm a bit less thrilled by the rolling shading on the preview and submit buttons below this post (yeah, what I see isn't what you're seeing, I know) because the graded shading that makes them look slightly rounded is overkill. But it isn't bad. In compensaton, however, the edges of the buttons are less obvious. (It wouldn't work as well as a "slightly rounded cylinder" if the edges were too distinct.)
IIUC, XFCE is dependent on Gnome libraries. If Gnome devs take support for something out of their libraries, XFCE will have to work hard to keep the functionality. I believe the same is true of Cinnamon.
Mate (MATE?), OTOH, seems to be derived from the Gnome2 libraries. So if they can be maintained (a big "if" there) it's relatively secure. (They are, of course, dependent on hardware support...and if the Gnome2 libraries need a feature that the other libraries don't need... but that's on the verge of paranoid speculation.)
Apple is the vendor, so Apple is responsible. That said, I think that "mixup" is a reasonable term from Apple's point of view.
OTOH, if I'd forked over $30, and then been left at a cliff-hanger, I don't think I'd be remotely satisfied with "OK, we'll let you try this again with a different show".
IOW, I don't think that Apple is being malicious here, rather the producer (AMC?). But I also don't feel that the proposed restitution is sufficient. And I don't feel that Apple is living up to their responsibilities as a vendor.
Fortunately, I'm a bystander. After I read the EULA that they attached to a security upgrade a bit over a decade ago I stopped buying or using Apple products. (I'd stopped buying or using MS a few years earlier over the instalation EULA.)
The terms I'll put up with on entertainment are quite different from the terms that I'll put up with on tools.
Revolutions never succeed without the support of at least SOME of the upper classes. When they succeed, they usually create a government that is worse than the one they replace.
Note that Revolutions are different from expulsion of foreign rulers, which is what the US.1776.revolution was. And what the US.Civil War.1865 attempted unsuccessfully to be. Also note that the 1776 revolution was only possible with the support of the French government. And LONG lines of communication and supply. Even so it was a close thing.
Coup d'états are much more commonly successful, but they, also, rarely improve things for anyone except the new top dogs. They tend to occur when the populace ceases to support the government, so it doesn't care that the new government is a gang of murders. So was the old one. They usually require the support of the military. They always require at least it's acquiescence.
I feel that the US is approaching the degree of popular distain that encourages coup d'états. I don't see a revolution as at all plausible.
OTOH, I am aware that I don't know much about the popular feeling. Only a few people in a small local area. And I don't trust the media to even lie consistently, so they're no help. So I could be quite wrong about how much people dislike the government. Distain seems to be coming from every corner of the political spectrum (NOT a one dimensional framework, but multidimensional...and still distain from every corner), but this is unreliable. People who are unhappy are always louder than those who are content.
He's probably gotten it confused with attempts to get people to sign the Declaration of Independence, which are frequently harassed and shut down. Occasionally there are news reports about it. (It's a *much* more subversive document than is the Constitution.)
P.S.: This has occasionally been ruled illegal even in public spaces (as opposed to private areas, which most college and university campuses are). I don't believe, however, than any conviction has ever been obtained except for something like trespass or "creating a public nuisance".
It's not clear that they ever throw ANYTHING away, no matter how illegal it is. For that matter, I don't know how a secret agency could even attempt to prove that, but that they can't prove it doesn't make it true.
If they claim to have been acting legally, I won't believe them. There's too much evidence to the contrary. If they claim to have been "just doing my job", then not only are they (unindicted) criminals, they are being directed by (unindicetd, probably) criminals.
If what they claim is that "we can get away with this", then I sorrowfully admit that they're probably telling the truth.
The problem is, not only can't they prove me wrong, but it would be illegal for them to do so. Which doesn't mean that I'm right or wrong, in and of itself, but combined with human nature the odds favor my being correct. When illegal acts don't have consequences, people tend to ignore the laws. Combining that with various pieces of information that have been made public (some of which, admittedly, is on the level of mere assertion, but some of which isn't) the odds are pretty high that my assment is correct.
It's pretty certain that I would never trust an assertion that a US hosted carrier was secure, or that a US endorsed encryption was secure. Fortunately, I'm not personally worried about that. I'm much more worried about indirect effects. E.g., other countries will no longer trust US standards, protocols, or communications. This will have an extremely negative effect over the long term. (Never mind that they aren't any better. That's irrelevant to how much trust they should place in US sponsored, hosted, or endorsed companies or technologies.)
The journalists don't tell you how it's done, because they don't understand the explanations. This isn't being a gatekeeper. This is being a "narrow passage".
P.S.:
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Why don't they say how long you need to wait?
You don't even *need* all that, unless you really need security. If you just really don't want to be snooped on, a diversity of communication channels makes it more difficult to monitor all of them, so it decreases the probability of any one communication being snooped on. Which is why the G.P..s reference to fidonet was reasonable.
OTOH, this same diversity makes it difficult for you to contact a wide diversity of people. For that you need standardized approaches, like e-mail and web pages (depending on how targeted you want to be, and how you target).
P.S.: It's already been suggested that one might use actions in a game as a protocol layer for the transmission of messages. This would be a bit difficult to implement, and you might need to choose the game carefully, but... And more practical is steganography applied to porno movies. If nothing else the package should serve as a distraction from the message. (And if you're doing that, be sure to include some bursts of noise in the message, so they'll be sure to study the package carefully.)
Did these acts take place in Britain, or on the continent? I don't think that British law can legalize something that's illegal in the place where it occurred, so the distinction is significant.
Not as often...but IIRC there was a period in China when the various monastic orders had their own private armies and acted like warlords. Eventually the central government put that down, and forbid the monks to carry arms. That's when the various schools of bare handed martial arts began to evolve.
A better solution is abolishing software patents. Software should be protected by copyright and trade secrets. Patents on software is an extremely bad idea, has always been an extremely bad idea, and has just gotten worse every year since Intel first managed a moderately plausible patent. (That was actually a hardware patent if properly understood, and as a hardware patent it should have been void as trivially obvious. But because the software being burned into the ROM (FPLA?) was involved, it looked like something new. Well, the software was original, and deserved copyright protection, but not a patent. And the ROM (FPLA?) while fairly new at the time, was just being used as designed.
Actually, what he said was the the US had declared that if someone else did it to them it would be an act of war. He didn't say that this was an accurate statement.
Lavabit wasn't shutdown by the government. He shut down to avoid violating his customers trust. The government didn't WANT him to shut down, they wanted him to secretly open up.
No, he didn't. There is reasonable evidence that the government either knew, or had reason to know, about "something like" the 9/11 event before it happened. And interestingly within a couple of days they had authorizing legislation in front of congress that essentially authorized much of the current police state.
So. Maybe they knew. They definitely had reason to know, as they were informed both by FBI agents and by foreign intelligence agencies that an event was coming, and about when. The FBI even identified one or two of the pilots. (Can't remember which.) *And* they had legislation already written to present to congress.
Still, perhaps they were just planning to take advantage of the next emergency, whatever it happened to be. If so, then as well as being treasonous, they are also miseasant, perhaps malfeasant. (I consider pushing that legislation treasonous, and everyone who voted for it a traitor. Also the president who signed it. Traitor. Clear violation of the oath of office. Most of congress AND the president deserved to be impeached and convicted over that. But it was also, by my definition, treason.)
If I remember correctly, General Relativity used tensors over a 10 dimensional simplificaiton of a 16 dimensional field.
Perhaps your assertion should be reconsidered. Also we know that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are wrong, or at least incomplete, because they both make testable (and tested) predictions that they other can't generate.
One of the key words in what you said was in the last paragraph: "reported". I quote:
And if you want to see what not to do in a financial crisis, look at the central bank that steadfastly refused to print money like crazy during the recession: the European Central Bank. The result is Spain with a 26.9% unemployment rate, compared to the 7.4% just reported in the US.
Consider the significance of the word "reported". I believe the report to be quite an erroneous. And also consider that 45% of currently existing jobs are expecte to be automated by around 2020. (I, personally, think that this is an overestimation of the rate of automation, but I haven't studied it recently.) Note the article today that says robots-join-final-assembly-line-at-us-auto-plant. It could be that I'm underestimating the rate of automation.
Unemployment needs to become acceptable, and employment needs to become unnecessary for survival. But this will be difficult as there are still boring and unpleasant jobs that can't be automated. Also because many people believe that one's worth is determined by their job. Also because the tax structure is such that jobs need to be as efficient, meaning employ as few people, and coerce as much work out of them at possible. It doesn't really mean that jobs need to be made as unpleasant as possible, but many managers seem to think that it does, and while a job is necessary for (reasonable) survival, they are free to exercise power.
OTOH, one needs to realize that this is going to mean that an increasing number of people are dependent on the government for survival. With the implications that those psychotically driven by a need to control will flock from their current positions to roles in government that provide equivalent opportunities. (Not that there isn't a significant tendency in that direction already, but the current system provides them with a diffuse network of niches, and most of those would disappear.)
I don't really see a good answer, but I sure see a lot of bad ones. And the current situation isn't even meta-stable.
Time is significant. Linux was originally developed mainly by hobbyists. After awhile a few corporations started subsidizing development, first by donations of equipment, and later by actually hiring people to ensure that it would run on their hardware. The people they tended to hire were those who were already acknowledged as experienced and talented.
Currently there are still a few pure hobbyists, but most developers have commercial subsidy, or are employed by some corportion or other. (I'm including, e.g., Red Hat.) There are multiple reasons. One is that a greater proportion of currently developing programmers are less into systems work. Another is that the system has become significantly more complex. (Most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.) Etc.
OTOH, do note that new distros are still being created. But also note that they tend to be created by forking an existing popular distro. The system is currently too complex for one person, and probably for one team of people, to manage a complete general purpose distro, like Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, or Suse. Slackware seems to be a counter example to this claim, but I don't know it well enough to know that it actually is.
Also, to be accepted as a kernel developer, you need to have a track record. And that takes time and effort. There are still some specialized areas that a person can use to break in (keeping documentation current is probably still such a place), but it's a lot more difficult than it used to be, because there are so many people submitting patches. It's much easier to do that if you have someone already accepted to vouch for you, and also to lead you through the process. And, as stated, most of those are currently people paid to work on the system as their job.
So, yes, it has developed into a system largely developed by people employed by corporations. And many of them are, indeed, the same people who started out doing this as a hobby.
Remembering back to before ads...I'm not sure it would be worse, just because it was different.
It's true that in the early days there wasn't nearly as much on the internet, but in the first place that wasn't all bad, and in the second place, anything that people were interested in tended to show up.
And in the third place, ads hosted on the site, rather than distributed, tend to be much more accountable. (If the ads are too annoying, the site dies.)
Yeah. Instead you should be thinking of biochem labs with sloppy procedures. Expect that to happen in startups. And the problem probably won't be active malice (unless they're angling for a military grant, or funded by some essentially terrorist organization).
P.S.: By "terrorist organization" I don't intend to exclude either standard governments or for-profit criminal organizations thinking of "protection money". Political groups that are out of power aren't the only terrorist organizations.
Because it's not actual motion, it's the space expanding. And one of the results of that expansion is that the frequency of radiation transiting it drops. If it's beyond the observable edge (actual, not current technology) then the wave length has shifted down until the signal strength is below the noise level. Note also that as the frequency drops, the amount of information that the signal can carry per unit time drops. When it drops below the noise level, you just can't ever detect it. I think there are also a few other effects with the same result, though I'm not sure they occur at the same space-time distance.
Please note that this is an approximately uniform expansion. (That doesn't apply within galaxies, or, I think, galaxy clusters. Those aren't expanding. Rather they are the raisins in the loaf of bread. Because they are bound by gravity. But, I believe, galaxy super-clusters do expand in this way.)
OTOH, I am not a cosmologist. This is a layman's understanding.