Excuse me, but what time period are you talking about. Before there was Google, there was Alta Vista. Before there was Alta Vista there was WebSpider. Before there was WebSpider there were lots of people rolling their own search engines. I think that.... it's been too long, but search engines didn't originate on Web, they predated it. I suppose if you go back before DNS you find a time without search engines... I remember a brief period where I kept an extensive list of entries in my hosts file, but saying "the internet existed just fine without search engines" is also saying it existed just fine with only a few hundred sites, possibly a few thousand. And it's true, if you scale things back that far, search engines are just a useful utility. (That hosts file quickly became a pain to maintain.)
"more rights than free speech"? Perhaps in some areas. Definitely not in others. In the US truth is nearly a strict defense against libel. (Not quite...there are edge cases, but close.) In Britain this isn't true. (OTOH, you still have to be able to afford legal fees, which really limits the application of this. IIUC, legal fees are a lot less in Britain.)
Try "up to the present date" instead of "into the 1960s". Legally it's not true, but practically it is. Trump is trying to replace the low-man position with Latinos, but it's only working in certain areas...and I'm not sure he doesn't just hate anyone different from himself in any way whatsoever.
We've had various licenses that did that. But they never became part of the GPL or BSD licenses. IIRC, one license said you couldn't use the code on anything connected to nuclear devices. I think that one came from MicroSoft, though, so it was hardly open source.
Personally, I generally prefer Free Software over Open Source, though you could call Free Software a subset of Open Source.
I seem to remember a study I ran across awhile ago that claimed that social norms were only maintained by those oppressed by their violation occasionally throwing personal costs to the wind and acting violently to revenge themselves on those violating them. In that case I'd say her mistake was poor targeting, but she probably did the best she could.
OTOH, I suspect her targeting was poor enough that it will have no effect.
The last time I checked there was a package that was supposed to produce text logs in addition to the binary logs, but it was broken. Not in all cases, but often enough. And the bug had been there for long enough to get marked "won't fix". I haven't followed the matter since then, however....
That "won't fix" rather soured me on the entire systemD approach. Since it provides me with absolutely no benefits, it didn't take much in the way of defects to cause me to wish it would just go away. (And there were a few other defects in the early days, but they eventually fixed those, or at least I stopped noticing them.)
But as far as I am concerned systemD is an overly complex "solution" the something that wasn't a problem to me. It's ancillary modules, however, have repeatedly been annoying, and occasionally caused severe problems. That I worked around them hasn't made me think highly of systemD, because it has absolutely no benefits to me.
Well, MSWindows 95A was pretty secure if you didn't insert any corrupted disks locally.
Outside of that I think that OpenBSD is generally considered the most secure. Of course, if you want it to be really secure you write protect the system partition after you install it. (This generally means, in Linux, that you need to create a bunch of hard links from your system partition to another partition that you allow writes to, so that, e.g., the/tmp directory can be written to. I'm not sure anymore what the BSD equivalent to that is. It's been too many decades since I used it. (I was the system operator/administrator/IT department for an Altos i386 Unix box running some sort of BSD Unix...but that was in the days when the i386 was new.)
It depends on your use case. For me systemD has no benefits, though, admittedly, few drawbacks as an init system. Unfortunately, it's difficult to uncouple the init system from the rest. And, e.g., I dislike logs that aren't text based (or have they finally fixed the bugs in that piece...last I heard it was "won't fix").
Why so much hate? Because systemD is being shoved down people's throats. I know of nobody who asked for it. I sure didn't. I haven't yet switched to a distribution that doesn't use it, but that sure doesn't mean that I wanted it. It doesn't even mean I won't switch in the future.
Well, it's an overstatement. But if a daemon crashes without being asked to then there's clearly an error. Either a software error or a hardware error, but an error. And errors are frequently the kind of place that a malicious actor can use...so trusting them to restart is unwise...unless you told it to crash for some reason.
So. Overstatement, but not actually wrong. Now the question is, what do you do if you need to run the daemon, but it has errors that occasionally cause it to crash without being asked? The best thing to do would clearly be to fix the error, but this may be infeasible, so the next best thing is to have a monitor process that restarts it. But this probably shouldn't be a part of the init system, and certainly shouldn't be applied to all daemons by default.
Actually, what I read was that 1984 was a fictionalized presentation of what Orwell saw in Spain in 1948. He was describing a present, not warning of a future. If you want warning, you can make a better case for Animal Farm. Not that people paid attention to either.
But he wasn't late to the game. Centralized control by non-human actors wasn't possible even in 1948, though it had started by then. Prior attempts depended on compliance of local political leaders, and fell apart when, e.g., Henry VIII wanted a divorce the pope didn't want to give him. (Not that Henry was much better from the viewpoint of the local populace. And that lead to a series of civil wars.)
"Thousands of companies" haven't lost the trust of their audience by trying to impose
most companies with web presence try to use cookies to trace people. Often, admittedly, only to improve service, but you can't know what their purposes are, and so many lie that you can't trust their explanations.
Do you actually think you can use a credit card anywhere without *some* company spying on you? You can argue justification, and that's not totally wrong, but it doesn't change the actuality. And any time "customer data" is lost in a security breach, you know that some amount of spying by the business on their customers is going on. You just don't know how much.
Also, someone is paying to keep those people selling personal information in business. All those who buy that information are spying, often on people who have no business relationship with them or knowledge of their activities.
So saying thousands of companies are spying on you probably isn't hyperbole, and it's likely an underestimate. How thoroughly they are spying is another question, and we don't know, and aren't allowed to know, the answer. Experian certainly hasn't been very forthcoming about what kind of information was lost, but is seems likely it was enough to allow anyone to open an account in the name of anyone in their database.
Yes. When I was in school I was depressed because of my lack of social life. Not that it was much better immediately afterwards, but at least I eventually got a girl friend, and, much later, a wife.
Perhaps the people most likely to throw themselves into PhD studies are those without a social life?
To me they have slightly different meanings, and the meaning here is closer to "based off" than to "based on". I probably still would have used "based on" were I writing it, but that's because of frequency of use, and because "based on" is less precise in meaning. "based off" means, to me, that a design (and *only* a design) is modified from another design. "based on" includes using one thing, of whatever nature, to support another. The idea here is geometric, rather a building block model, where you base an extension on something already present.
I think he's saying that most people aren't interested in using the tool the way you want to use it, and would rather consider it a side issue that they didn't need to pay attention to.
This year I think it's up to 99.9%, or maybe another nine. OTOH, last time I used Gnumeric it seemed to have disimproved over the earlier versions. And AbiWord was pretty basic, at the time I tried it I don't think it would have server more than 80% of the users. Of course, in both cases that was nearly a decade ago now (not quite). But judging by the way Gnome3 GUI has changed I don't expect things to have improved.
OTOH, you didn't mention LibreOffice, which is the one I prefer.
Well, that brings up another point. Most people carry around multiple tumors all the time. Some of them grow a bit, others don't. Only the exceptional one turns cancerous. So the rats developed perceptible (with instruments) tumors...were the tumors dangerous?
OTOH, I continue to avoid ear-buds. I generally assume that even low levels of non-ionizing radiation won't be helpful. Certainly not unless there's a wound to be healed, but my presumption would be that any medical use would need to be carefully controlled to result in any benefit. I'll grant that this is not an evidence based presumption, but lacking decent evidence it seems a reasonable defalut.
Even wild rats are more likely to get tumors on a per cell-year basis than are anthropoids. Elephants are a lot less likely.
Additionally, in order to get results fairly quickly, usually the proposed tumor stimulant is supersaturated in the environment. I didn't check this study, but I doubt that the rats just carried little cell phones around.
OTOH!!! People live a lot longer than rats, so over time they are more likely to develop tumors.
This seems to me to be an important preliminary study. It breaks the wall saying that cell phone radiation is harmless. Now it can be effectively studied. I doubt that rats are a good test animal. Pigs would probably be better, but it's hard to maintain a laboratory will 5000 pigs. How this can be handled I'm not sure. And one couldn't expect results of a realistic study for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way it should. The request should be for the pages linked to to be delisted. Google is just being an index, it's not providing the story.
Excuse me, but what time period are you talking about. Before there was Google, there was Alta Vista. Before there was Alta Vista there was WebSpider. Before there was WebSpider there were lots of people rolling their own search engines. I think that .... it's been too long, but search engines didn't originate on Web, they predated it. I suppose if you go back before DNS you find a time without search engines... I remember a brief period where I kept an extensive list of entries in my hosts file, but saying "the internet existed just fine without search engines" is also saying it existed just fine with only a few hundred sites, possibly a few thousand. And it's true, if you scale things back that far, search engines are just a useful utility. (That hosts file quickly became a pain to maintain.)
"more rights than free speech"? Perhaps in some areas. Definitely not in others. In the US truth is nearly a strict defense against libel. (Not quite...there are edge cases, but close.) In Britain this isn't true. (OTOH, you still have to be able to afford legal fees, which really limits the application of this. IIUC, legal fees are a lot less in Britain.)
Try "up to the present date" instead of "into the 1960s". Legally it's not true, but practically it is. Trump is trying to replace the low-man position with Latinos, but it's only working in certain areas...and I'm not sure he doesn't just hate anyone different from himself in any way whatsoever.
I wish you were correct, but my real guess is that Facebook will continue until something just as intrusive, or more, replaces it in popular fashion.
We've had various licenses that did that. But they never became part of the GPL or BSD licenses. IIRC, one license said you couldn't use the code on anything connected to nuclear devices. I think that one came from MicroSoft, though, so it was hardly open source.
Personally, I generally prefer Free Software over Open Source, though you could call Free Software a subset of Open Source.
Well, he said "...my company...", so asking for the source sounds like you didn't actually read his post.
Correct is not the accurate answer. OTOH...
I seem to remember a study I ran across awhile ago that claimed that social norms were only maintained by those oppressed by their violation occasionally throwing personal costs to the wind and acting violently to revenge themselves on those violating them. In that case I'd say her mistake was poor targeting, but she probably did the best she could.
OTOH, I suspect her targeting was poor enough that it will have no effect.
That may well be the reason, but it doesn't make me think any more highly of them.
The last time I checked there was a package that was supposed to produce text logs in addition to the binary logs, but it was broken. Not in all cases, but often enough. And the bug had been there for long enough to get marked "won't fix". I haven't followed the matter since then, however....
That "won't fix" rather soured me on the entire systemD approach. Since it provides me with absolutely no benefits, it didn't take much in the way of defects to cause me to wish it would just go away. (And there were a few other defects in the early days, but they eventually fixed those, or at least I stopped noticing them.)
But as far as I am concerned systemD is an overly complex "solution" the something that wasn't a problem to me. It's ancillary modules, however, have repeatedly been annoying, and occasionally caused severe problems. That I worked around them hasn't made me think highly of systemD, because it has absolutely no benefits to me.
If you read the release notes you'd notice that this release talks about improved multi-core support. So they must already have it.
Well, MSWindows 95A was pretty secure if you didn't insert any corrupted disks locally.
Outside of that I think that OpenBSD is generally considered the most secure. Of course, if you want it to be really secure you write protect the system partition after you install it. (This generally means, in Linux, that you need to create a bunch of hard links from your system partition to another partition that you allow writes to, so that, e.g., the /tmp directory can be written to. I'm not sure anymore what the BSD equivalent to that is. It's been too many decades since I used it. (I was the system operator/administrator/IT department for an Altos i386 Unix box running some sort of BSD Unix...but that was in the days when the i386 was new.)
It depends on your use case. For me systemD has no benefits, though, admittedly, few drawbacks as an init system. Unfortunately, it's difficult to uncouple the init system from the rest. And, e.g., I dislike logs that aren't text based (or have they finally fixed the bugs in that piece...last I heard it was "won't fix").
Why so much hate? Because systemD is being shoved down people's throats. I know of nobody who asked for it. I sure didn't. I haven't yet switched to a distribution that doesn't use it, but that sure doesn't mean that I wanted it. It doesn't even mean I won't switch in the future.
Well, it's an overstatement. But if a daemon crashes without being asked to then there's clearly an error. Either a software error or a hardware error, but an error. And errors are frequently the kind of place that a malicious actor can use...so trusting them to restart is unwise...unless you told it to crash for some reason.
So. Overstatement, but not actually wrong. Now the question is, what do you do if you need to run the daemon, but it has errors that occasionally cause it to crash without being asked? The best thing to do would clearly be to fix the error, but this may be infeasible, so the next best thing is to have a monitor process that restarts it. But this probably shouldn't be a part of the init system, and certainly shouldn't be applied to all daemons by default.
Actually, what I read was that 1984 was a fictionalized presentation of what Orwell saw in Spain in 1948. He was describing a present, not warning of a future. If you want warning, you can make a better case for Animal Farm. Not that people paid attention to either.
But he wasn't late to the game. Centralized control by non-human actors wasn't possible even in 1948, though it had started by then. Prior attempts depended on compliance of local political leaders, and fell apart when, e.g., Henry VIII wanted a divorce the pope didn't want to give him. (Not that Henry was much better from the viewpoint of the local populace. And that lead to a series of civil wars.)
While it's true that
"Thousands of companies" haven't lost the trust of their audience by trying to impose
most companies with web presence try to use cookies to trace people. Often, admittedly, only to improve service, but you can't know what their purposes are, and so many lie that you can't trust their explanations.
Do you actually think you can use a credit card anywhere without *some* company spying on you? You can argue justification, and that's not totally wrong, but it doesn't change the actuality. And any time "customer data" is lost in a security breach, you know that some amount of spying by the business on their customers is going on. You just don't know how much.
Also, someone is paying to keep those people selling personal information in business. All those who buy that information are spying, often on people who have no business relationship with them or knowledge of their activities.
So saying thousands of companies are spying on you probably isn't hyperbole, and it's likely an underestimate. How thoroughly they are spying is another question, and we don't know, and aren't allowed to know, the answer. Experian certainly hasn't been very forthcoming about what kind of information was lost, but is seems likely it was enough to allow anyone to open an account in the name of anyone in their database.
You should only revive a species if you can supply it a habitat to live in.
Yes. When I was in school I was depressed because of my lack of social life. Not that it was much better immediately afterwards, but at least I eventually got a girl friend, and, much later, a wife.
Perhaps the people most likely to throw themselves into PhD studies are those without a social life?
To me they have slightly different meanings, and the meaning here is closer to "based off" than to "based on". I probably still would have used "based on" were I writing it, but that's because of frequency of use, and because "based on" is less precise in meaning. "based off" means, to me, that a design (and *only* a design) is modified from another design. "based on" includes using one thing, of whatever nature, to support another. The idea here is geometric, rather a building block model, where you base an extension on something already present.
I think he's saying that most people aren't interested in using the tool the way you want to use it, and would rather consider it a side issue that they didn't need to pay attention to.
If that's what he's saying, I believe he's right.
This year I think it's up to 99.9%, or maybe another nine.
OTOH, last time I used Gnumeric it seemed to have disimproved over the earlier versions. And AbiWord was pretty basic, at the time I tried it I don't think it would have server more than 80% of the users. Of course, in both cases that was nearly a decade ago now (not quite). But judging by the way Gnome3 GUI has changed I don't expect things to have improved.
OTOH, you didn't mention LibreOffice, which is the one I prefer.
Well, that brings up another point. Most people carry around multiple tumors all the time. Some of them grow a bit, others don't. Only the exceptional one turns cancerous. So the rats developed perceptible (with instruments) tumors...were the tumors dangerous?
OTOH, I continue to avoid ear-buds. I generally assume that even low levels of non-ionizing radiation won't be helpful. Certainly not unless there's a wound to be healed, but my presumption would be that any medical use would need to be carefully controlled to result in any benefit. I'll grant that this is not an evidence based presumption, but lacking decent evidence it seems a reasonable defalut.
Even wild rats are more likely to get tumors on a per cell-year basis than are anthropoids. Elephants are a lot less likely.
Additionally, in order to get results fairly quickly, usually the proposed tumor stimulant is supersaturated in the environment. I didn't check this study, but I doubt that the rats just carried little cell phones around.
OTOH!!! People live a lot longer than rats, so over time they are more likely to develop tumors.
This seems to me to be an important preliminary study. It breaks the wall saying that cell phone radiation is harmless. Now it can be effectively studied. I doubt that rats are a good test animal. Pigs would probably be better, but it's hard to maintain a laboratory will 5000 pigs. How this can be handled I'm not sure. And one couldn't expect results of a realistic study for decades.
I don't know about all of them, but that's currently my default assumption for any of them.
OTOH, why would anyone be surprised at any foul deed performed by or attributed to Adobe which might make them some more money?