This past week I've been making a presentation for my coworkers, and I couldn't find any consistent images on the web that I could use. I downloaded Inkscape (Linux), and despite having absolutely zero graphical design experience, I was able to make some professional looking diagrams (at least I think they are), in just a few hours.
Most of my work required me to make small changes on one master SVG. The object "grouping" feature in Inkscape (probably from the SVG standard) was a lifesaver.
Inkscape has quickly become one of my favorite FOSS projects, and I never thought I'd being doing any sort of graphic design.
This is a complete mischaracterization of what has happened. There have been several bloggers that have been outraged on the behalf the Banshee/Gnome developers, but the Banshee devs have not been upset with this decision.
In fact, the situation is far better than the summary says. First, Banshee will ship with the store enabled on Ubuntu with a 75/25 affliate split between Canonical and Gnome, respectively. Neither side has a problem with this. Second, the official Canonical music store will do a similar split (75/25), even though Gnome doesn't have anything to do with its development.
Sure, the deal sounds like shit for Gnome, especially the Banshee part, but the freaking people that develop the application weren't upset by it. Furthermore, Canonical is splitting their store.
The developers that have the right to complain about this decision aren't, so it doesn't seem like anyone else should either.
Canonical isn't perfect, but why such the hate lately? If you aren't a developer or directly related to the Gnome Foundation, STFU. Stop being outraged on other people's behalf.
I hope that you understand that the compiling step for a mobile application is so insignificant that no developer would care. The real differences between the mobile platforms makes "write once, run anywhere" impossible.
Screen size, aspect ratio, and resolution are just a few of the problems that cross-platform app developers have to take into account, and there's nothing that QT can do for that.
QT is a fine toolkit (I'm a big KDE enthusiast), but what are the real selling points? A comparatively small number of developers have experience with it, far less than the number of potential.Net developers for WP7. Cross-platform mobile apps are largely impossible.
I hope you understand the text and email tones for what they are. It forces conformity amongst users. I don't have the recent update that added extras tones, but on my iPhone I have seven. Two are really terrible, leaving only five reasonable choices. That means a lot of iPhone users will use the same tone. Whenever you hear "your" tone, you instinctively think about getting a message. Furthermore, everyone else (non-iPhone users) hears these common tones, and then sees an iPhone whipped out with a nice shiny Apple logo on the back (where bystanders can see it). The limit on non-phone call tones is a marketing decision to increase the perceived presence of the iPhone.
Exactly. And furthermore, even if all the authors changed their license, Google and Co. would still have the previous release under the current license: GPLv2.
Many people who were critical of the Oracle buyout of Sun with respect to MySQL favored this exact same approach. The difference was a worry by the community that Oracle would (and who knows, might still) make MySQL less free. The interesting part about this is that Google and phone manufactures want a different kind of "freedom." The community wants copyleft licenses like the GPL because it preserves the community's access to code. Developers would rather use something closer to BSD where they can pick and choose what source is distributed.
Sure a GPLv3 Android (either through direct license or forced sub-system license) would be great for the community. However, I think that would destroy the very manufacturers that make Android possible.
I can't say that I happy with manufactuer's and Google's practices with releasing devices before open source code (like the GPL'd kernel). However, I'd say the situation is okay. There's not much that can be done about it, so I don't get too worked up about it.
I'm using Fedora 14 with testing repos. I'm currently running KDE SC 4.5.96 (KDE SC 4.6 RC2) with Nvidia 260.19.29 (card is a GeForce 210), and I haven't had any problems. I use compositing with Kwin too, and don't have any slowness or crashing.
I don't doubt that other people have had problems, but it's certainly not universal.
Graphics drivers on Linux are a complete mess, unless you use the Nvidia proprietary drivers. I'm not sure why anyone would choose anything else if they care about performance or features. There's just no comparison.
Here's one of the better criticisms of dropping SUID, and it's from an Openwall developer. These criticisms are echoed by almost everyone thinking about removing SUID.
There's a lot of talk lately regarding replacing the SUID bit on program binaries in Linux distros with filesystem capabilities. Specifically, Fedora and Ubuntu are heading in that direction.
While in general this is a good idea, there are issues with it, in arbitrary order:
- Some currently-SUID programs are aware of them being (potentially) SUID, and will drop the "more privileged" euid when it is no longer needed, but they will probably not be aware of them possessing capabilities. This may result in larger parts of the programs (sometimes orders of magnitude larger) running with elevated privileges (or with allowed-to-be-elevated privileges, which is a privilege on its own and is usable through vulnerabilities that allow for arbitrary code execution). Let's consider ping, which appears to be the classical example of "where filesystem capabilities will help" (or so it is claimed). IIRC, it starts by acquiring a raw socket (NB: of a certain somewhat-limited type), then drops root privs (if it was installed SUID root and run by non-root), then proceeds to parse the command-line, resolve the provided hostname, and so on. If the SUID bit is replaced with cap_net_raw+ep, as seen in Kees' example above, will ping know to drop this capability? Hardly. Not without a source code patch. Besides, dropping the capability might [need to] require privileges beyond CAP_NET_RAW itself (recall the capability-dropping attack on sendmail from a decade ago). So does moving from SUID root to cap_net_raw+ep improve security? Most likely not. On the contrary, it results in hundreds of lines of ping's code and thousands of lines of library code (DNS resolver) running with elevated privileges, as compared to just a few lines of ping.c, which was the case with simple SUID root. Granted, those "elevated privileges" are a lot less than root privileges, but they're a lot more than having a single raw socket of a specific type.
- In some cases, the capability sets being granted are (almost) equivalent (or expandable to) full root powers. This is seen in:
This mostly just sweeps the SUID root under the rug, where the sysadmin will hopefully not see it and thus feel safer. However, it may expose more problems in the programs if they knew to drop root, but wouldn't know to drop the capabilities (same issue I described above for ping).
Granted, vulnerabilities of certain classes might become unexploitable or be partially mitigated. For example, if no direct code execution is possible (not a buffer overflow, etc.), but "only" privileged access to an attacker-provided arbitrary pathname is possible, then "newrole" above would be protected, but "seunshare" above would not (because of cap_dac_override).
This is incorrect on two levels. First, you only need to make the changes available if you distribute the changed code to outside parties. Second, you only have to make the changes to those outside parties, not the general public. However, those parties are free to redistribute it, so this really depends on your customers. At my company, we have modified several GNU tools, and we haven't released any source code because we use them internally.
Personally, I favor BSD-style licenses over GPL. Yet, for internal applications there's very little difference. BSD just allows redistribution without source code.
Pillaging means removing resources from a location to enrich yourself. This is not pillaging because the resources are being used in the combat theater, and furthermore, they are not being used to enrich anyone.
Actually, it doesn't. Yes, it takes "time" for humans/bees/whatever to calculate the lowest cost route, but when studying algorithms, it doesn't add anything to the complexity. Since finding the quickest route is really like sorting, you get O(n Log(n)) which is contained in P.
Back to TSP, the additional routes don't even matter, because it's illogical to ever take an inefficient path.
I don't think you really understand systems administration. 'Users,' or in this case admins, don't typically do stuff once. Furthermore, they need to know what he did and how to do it again (i.e. new server or whatever) or just remember what he did. One-off stuff isn't common and is a sign of poor administration (i.e. tracking changes and following processes).
What I'm trying to get at is that admins shouldn't do anything without reading the manual. As a Windows/Linux admin, I tend to find Linux easier to properly administer because I either already know how to perform an operation or I have to read the manual (manpage) and learn a decent amount about the operation (i.e. more than click here/use this flag).
Don't get me wrong, GUIs can make unknown operations significantly easier, but they often lead to poor process management. To document processes, screenshots are typically needed. They can be done well, but I find that GUI documentation (created by admins, not vendor docs) tend to be of very low quality. They are also vulnerable to 'upgrades' where vendors change the interface design. CLI programs typically have more stable interfaces, but maybe that's just because they have been around longer...
Why would it be anything other than a standard Amazon/iTunes MP3 download? It's not like they are going to mix a better quality free digital download, and provide additional bandwidth for you to download it.
I would tend to agree with you about Apple's contributions. However, they are currently in a spat with the FSF over the GCC project. The FSF runs GCC and requires copyright assignment for all code contributions. Presumbably this is so they can quickly upgrade to the newwst GPL license (the Linux kernel is configured almost the opposite way, making the "upgrade" GPLv3 a non-option). Apple has spent a lot of time improving the Objective-C compiler in GCC, but isn't going to assign copyright for that work. What this means: 1) All code created by Apple is still GPL (not sure of version). Copright: Apple, Inc.: Licensed: GPL. 2) Apple's code is not merged to the official GCC source tree. 3) Not really any user disrruptions. Mac OS X/iOS are basically the only systems that use Object-C, and Apple provides the best implementation of Ojective-C via Apple's source tree. Other GCC-using platforms probably won't go through the effort of merging Apple's patches, but it's not likely that their users would even be interested in Objective-C.
Really the only thing that matters is that the FSF and Apple have not done a good job of working with one another.
Otherwise, Apple does a good job of working with free software projects. I think one of the best examples is CUPS. About three years ago Apple purchased all of the CUPS code. Apple has kept the project open, and nothing bad happened. Granted, there wasn't much fear of anything bad happening, and CUPS isn't exactly breath-taking technology, but everything worked out great.
"Interestingly, by some algebraic manipulations, (our) formula can compute pi with some bits skipped; in other words, it allows computing specific bits of pi," Mr Sze explained to BBC News.
So why don't they just use their formula to compute the last digit of Pi already? That would be the rational approach. Who cares about the two quadrillionth digit??
The main problem here is foreign students. I recently graduated from the math department, and many students had basically no understanding of English.
I really disagree that non-English-speaking students should be allowed in American universities. I just didn't get the feeling that they participated in the classroom at all. However, that's not how things work, so I'll be more pragmatic.
Since there are many students with little understanding of English, there are ESL departments that can be good resources. They might have a recommendation on acceptable translators. And, while it might not help you right now, you might be able to convey recommendations (ex. no network capabilities) that the university can provide to incoming ESL students. Then, you won't have as much of a problem in the future. If it really turns out to be a problem, then in addition to spare calculators, you might need to provide a few spare translators that students can use if they forget theirs or bring an illegal one.
The problem for Apple doesn't have anything to do with their "walled garder." That's an issue for users, not content producers.
I do agree that Apple (and Google) won't get good content deals. The movie/TV industries have realized how badly the music industry got raped by iTMS. Digital downloads are way up, but they just aren't making very much money. Why on earth would movie/TV industries want any piece of that pie. Decreasing prices is certainly good from a consumer POV, but from a producer's view it's bad, unless you can make up the revenue in increased sales. I don't think the price-points exist to make ATV or GTV profitable enough to entice content producers to make "all" (or substantial parts) of their catalogs available.
Content industries are successful because they know how to segment markets. Slashdotters hate it, but that's the way the business is done.
But this doesn't make any sense. Windows 7 is almost brand new. You can't emulate a brand new design so it's comfortable for new users.
I think emulating Windows' DE, but I understand that it could help very ignorant users, although I would seriously question the wisdom of moving them to Linux. However, emulate something familiar like Windows XP.
While I mostly agree with your analysis, I have to put my two cents in.
I think the defining characteristic of fantasy is a reactionary ideology. That is, "fantasy" has some status quo, which is good, peaceful, etc. Some evil emerges that wants to disrupt this harmony, and the entire struggle is basically to return to the status quo. I use the term "evil" because there's no better way to characterize the baddies. Every minion is complete evil and deserves to be washed from the earth/planet. My favorite part is that the good guys technically more closely resemble antagonists (they don't "change" and in fact oppose it); whereas, the bad guys are usually trying to overthrow some thousand year-old harmony, making them protagonists.
Sci-fi is more difficult to characterize. There is certainly my definition of fantasy in many works; however, there are many other outcomes. Fantasy tends to ignore the complexities of real life, and glosses over any complaints that the enemy may have by painting them as completely evil monsters. Sci-fi tends to ignore many of the complexities by internalizing them in technology/"science," but actually presents them to the viewer, although usually in a sock/quirky-value sort of way. Fantasy breaks down if one side isn't evil and single-minded.
Damn, I hate to keep posting on Slashdot about my SO who is a HR recruiter for a tech security firm, but I have to. Hiring managers, who at her company are actually technical people, don't give shit for position requirements. Usually, the recruiter knows a couple of buzz words about the position, salary range, and an education requirement. Since the recruiter hasn't spent time on the project (and the manager doesn't want to spend time selecting candidates), you get bad choices.
*Recruiter takes resume/notes from phone interview to manger* Manager: This person doesn't have PHP development for X years. Recruiter: They have Perl, Python, Java, whatever. Manager: That's not what I asked for, quit wasting my time.
*Recruiter takes info from PHP developer to Manger* Manager: This person doesn't have enough experience. Recruiter: How much experience do you want? Manager: More (typical response). Recruiter: I will try to find someone that meets the salary constraints.
We give HR a hard time because they seem to bumble around all the time. However, they usually only deal with something for a few minutes. It's just not possible for them to be up to speed. If they were given better specifications, they would make better decisions. However, it all goes back to the manager who wouldn't speed 10 extra minutes creating a job description.
Actually, even though Nvidia does not support KMS their drivers do support running X as a normal user. Users of the ATI proprietary drivers are SOL.
Using KMS does not automatically remove the root requirement. For example, Ubuntu uses KMS drivers for many cards currently, but one of the big improvements for 10.10 will be to run X as a normal user with some drivers.
My point is that there are very few places where they would be enforced. They are a scare tactic, espcially for anyone that reads Slashdot. We aren't exactly the executive types where an ex-employer would bother with (expensive) legal scare-tactics.
Because all those ex-employees are just being retributive...
While maybe a few thieves steal just to harm their victims, the vast majority of thieves are selfish. It doesn't matter what management does (short of keeping the employee); dis-honest people will do dis-honest things to their own betterment. Otherwise, they'd just throw a brick through the window or do some other vandalism, which would probably cost the company more than stealing office supplies and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like an echo chamber in here today.
This past week I've been making a presentation for my coworkers, and I couldn't find any consistent images on the web that I could use. I downloaded Inkscape (Linux), and despite having absolutely zero graphical design experience, I was able to make some professional looking diagrams (at least I think they are), in just a few hours.
Most of my work required me to make small changes on one master SVG. The object "grouping" feature in Inkscape (probably from the SVG standard) was a lifesaver.
Inkscape has quickly become one of my favorite FOSS projects, and I never thought I'd being doing any sort of graphic design.
The article is incorrect and outdated.
This is a complete mischaracterization of what has happened. There have been several bloggers that have been outraged on the behalf the Banshee/Gnome developers, but the Banshee devs have not been upset with this decision.
In fact, the situation is far better than the summary says. First, Banshee will ship with the store enabled on Ubuntu with a 75/25 affliate split between Canonical and Gnome, respectively. Neither side has a problem with this. Second, the official Canonical music store will do a similar split (75/25), even though Gnome doesn't have anything to do with its development.
Sure, the deal sounds like shit for Gnome, especially the Banshee part, but the freaking people that develop the application weren't upset by it. Furthermore, Canonical is splitting their store.
The developers that have the right to complain about this decision aren't, so it doesn't seem like anyone else should either.
Canonical isn't perfect, but why such the hate lately? If you aren't a developer or directly related to the Gnome Foundation, STFU. Stop being outraged on other people's behalf.
I hope that you understand that the compiling step for a mobile application is so insignificant that no developer would care. The real differences between the mobile platforms makes "write once, run anywhere" impossible.
Screen size, aspect ratio, and resolution are just a few of the problems that cross-platform app developers have to take into account, and there's nothing that QT can do for that.
QT is a fine toolkit (I'm a big KDE enthusiast), but what are the real selling points? A comparatively small number of developers have experience with it, far less than the number of potential .Net developers for WP7. Cross-platform mobile apps are largely impossible.
I hope you understand the text and email tones for what they are. It forces conformity amongst users.
I don't have the recent update that added extras tones, but on my iPhone I have seven. Two are really terrible, leaving only five reasonable choices. That means a lot of iPhone users will use the same tone. Whenever you hear "your" tone, you instinctively think about getting a message. Furthermore, everyone else (non-iPhone users) hears these common tones, and then sees an iPhone whipped out with a nice shiny Apple logo on the back (where bystanders can see it).
The limit on non-phone call tones is a marketing decision to increase the perceived presence of the iPhone.
Exactly. And furthermore, even if all the authors changed their license, Google and Co. would still have the previous release under the current license: GPLv2.
Many people who were critical of the Oracle buyout of Sun with respect to MySQL favored this exact same approach. The difference was a worry by the community that Oracle would (and who knows, might still) make MySQL less free. The interesting part about this is that Google and phone manufactures want a different kind of "freedom." The community wants copyleft licenses like the GPL because it preserves the community's access to code. Developers would rather use something closer to BSD where they can pick and choose what source is distributed.
Sure a GPLv3 Android (either through direct license or forced sub-system license) would be great for the community. However, I think that would destroy the very manufacturers that make Android possible.
I can't say that I happy with manufactuer's and Google's practices with releasing devices before open source code (like the GPL'd kernel). However, I'd say the situation is okay. There's not much that can be done about it, so I don't get too worked up about it.
I'm using Fedora 14 with testing repos. I'm currently running KDE SC 4.5.96 (KDE SC 4.6 RC2) with Nvidia 260.19.29 (card is a GeForce 210), and I haven't had any problems. I use compositing with Kwin too, and don't have any slowness or crashing.
I don't doubt that other people have had problems, but it's certainly not universal.
Graphics drivers on Linux are a complete mess, unless you use the Nvidia proprietary drivers. I'm not sure why anyone would choose anything else if they care about performance or features. There's just no comparison.
Don't fret. There's lots of free books you can download http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/book/reading.php from our dear leader.
Here's one of the better criticisms of dropping SUID, and it's from an Openwall developer. These criticisms are echoed by almost everyone thinking about removing SUID.
There's a lot of talk lately regarding replacing the SUID bit on program
binaries in Linux distros with filesystem capabilities. Specifically,
Fedora and Ubuntu are heading in that direction.
Fedora:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RemoveSETUID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646440
Ubuntu:
http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2010/02/09/easy-example-of-fscaps/
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/FilesystemCapabilties
While in general this is a good idea, there are issues with it, in
arbitrary order:
- Some currently-SUID programs are aware of them being (potentially)
SUID, and will drop the "more privileged" euid when it is no longer
needed, but they will probably not be aware of them possessing
capabilities. This may result in larger parts of the programs
(sometimes orders of magnitude larger) running with elevated privileges
(or with allowed-to-be-elevated privileges, which is a privilege on its
own and is usable through vulnerabilities that allow for arbitrary code
execution). Let's consider ping, which appears to be the classical
example of "where filesystem capabilities will help" (or so it is
claimed). IIRC, it starts by acquiring a raw socket (NB: of a certain
somewhat-limited type), then drops root privs (if it was installed SUID
root and run by non-root), then proceeds to parse the command-line,
resolve the provided hostname, and so on. If the SUID bit is replaced
with cap_net_raw+ep, as seen in Kees' example above, will ping know to
drop this capability? Hardly. Not without a source code patch.
Besides, dropping the capability might [need to] require privileges
beyond CAP_NET_RAW itself (recall the capability-dropping attack on
sendmail from a decade ago). So does moving from SUID root to
cap_net_raw+ep improve security? Most likely not. On the contrary, it
results in hundreds of lines of ping's code and thousands of lines of
library code (DNS resolver) running with elevated privileges, as
compared to just a few lines of ping.c, which was the case with simple
SUID root. Granted, those "elevated privileges" are a lot less than
root privileges, but they're a lot more than having a single raw socket
of a specific type.
- In some cases, the capability sets being granted are (almost)
equivalent (or expandable to) full root powers. This is seen in:
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/policycoreutils_setuid.patch
-%attr(4755,root,root) %{_bindir}/newrole
+%attr(0755,root,root) %caps(cap_audit_write,cap_setuid) %{_bindir}/newrole
-%{_sbindir}/seunshare
+%attr(0755,root,root) %caps(cap_setuid,cap_dac_override,cap_sys_admin,cap_sys_nice) %{_sbindir}/seunshare
This mostly just sweeps the SUID root under the rug, where the sysadmin
will hopefully not see it and thus feel safer. However, it may expose
more problems in the programs if they knew to drop root, but wouldn't
know to drop the capabilities (same issue I described above for ping).
Granted, vulnerabilities of certain classes might become unexploitable
or be partially mitigated. For example, if no direct code execution is
possible (not a buffer overflow, etc.), but "only" privileged access to
an attacker-provided arbitrary pathname is possible, then "newrole"
above would be protected, but "seunshare" above would not (because of
cap_dac_override).
- Completely getting rid of SUID root pro
This is incorrect on two levels. First, you only need to make the changes available if you distribute the changed code to outside parties. Second, you only have to make the changes to those outside parties, not the general public. However, those parties are free to redistribute it, so this really depends on your customers.
At my company, we have modified several GNU tools, and we haven't released any source code because we use them internally.
Personally, I favor BSD-style licenses over GPL. Yet, for internal applications there's very little difference. BSD just allows redistribution without source code.
Pillaging means removing resources from a location to enrich yourself. This is not pillaging because the resources are being used in the combat theater, and furthermore, they are not being used to enrich anyone.
Actually, it doesn't. Yes, it takes "time" for humans/bees/whatever to calculate the lowest cost route, but when studying algorithms, it doesn't add anything to the complexity. Since finding the quickest route is really like sorting, you get O(n Log(n)) which is contained in P.
Back to TSP, the additional routes don't even matter, because it's illogical to ever take an inefficient path.
I don't think you really understand systems administration. 'Users,' or in this case admins, don't typically do stuff once. Furthermore, they need to know what he did and how to do it again (i.e. new server or whatever) or just remember what he did.
One-off stuff isn't common and is a sign of poor administration (i.e. tracking changes and following processes).
What I'm trying to get at is that admins shouldn't do anything without reading the manual. As a Windows/Linux admin, I tend to find Linux easier to properly administer because I either already know how to perform an operation or I have to read the manual (manpage) and learn a decent amount about the operation (i.e. more than click here/use this flag).
Don't get me wrong, GUIs can make unknown operations significantly easier, but they often lead to poor process management. To document processes, screenshots are typically needed. They can be done well, but I find that GUI documentation (created by admins, not vendor docs) tend to be of very low quality. They are also vulnerable to 'upgrades' where vendors change the interface design. CLI programs typically have more stable interfaces, but maybe that's just because they have been around longer...
Why would it be anything other than a standard Amazon/iTunes MP3 download? It's not like they are going to mix a better quality free digital download, and provide additional bandwidth for you to download it.
I would tend to agree with you about Apple's contributions. However, they are currently in a spat with the FSF over the GCC project. The FSF runs GCC and requires copyright assignment for all code contributions. Presumbably this is so they can quickly upgrade to the newwst GPL license (the Linux kernel is configured almost the opposite way, making the "upgrade" GPLv3 a non-option). Apple has spent a lot of time improving the Objective-C compiler in GCC, but isn't going to assign copyright for that work.
What this means:
1) All code created by Apple is still GPL (not sure of version). Copright: Apple, Inc.: Licensed: GPL.
2) Apple's code is not merged to the official GCC source tree.
3) Not really any user disrruptions.
Mac OS X/iOS are basically the only systems that use Object-C, and Apple provides the best implementation of Ojective-C via Apple's source tree. Other GCC-using platforms probably won't go through the effort of merging Apple's patches, but it's not likely that their users would even be interested in Objective-C.
Really the only thing that matters is that the FSF and Apple have not done a good job of working with one another.
Otherwise, Apple does a good job of working with free software projects. I think one of the best examples is CUPS. About three years ago Apple purchased all of the CUPS code. Apple has kept the project open, and nothing bad happened. Granted, there wasn't much fear of anything bad happening, and CUPS isn't exactly breath-taking technology, but everything worked out great.
"Interestingly, by some algebraic manipulations, (our) formula can compute pi with some bits skipped; in other words, it allows computing specific bits of pi," Mr Sze explained to BBC News.
So why don't they just use their formula to compute the last digit of Pi already?
That would be the rational approach. Who cares about the two quadrillionth digit??
We could link to Mark's actual blog post http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/517 instead of linking to some crappy IT World "article."
The main problem here is foreign students. I recently graduated from the math department, and many students had basically no understanding of English.
I really disagree that non-English-speaking students should be allowed in American universities. I just didn't get the feeling that they participated in the classroom at all. However, that's not how things work, so I'll be more pragmatic.
Since there are many students with little understanding of English, there are ESL departments that can be good resources. They might have a recommendation on acceptable translators. And, while it might not help you right now, you might be able to convey recommendations (ex. no network capabilities) that the university can provide to incoming ESL students. Then, you won't have as much of a problem in the future.
If it really turns out to be a problem, then in addition to spare calculators, you might need to provide a few spare translators that students can use if they forget theirs or bring an illegal one.
The problem for Apple doesn't have anything to do with their "walled garder." That's an issue for users, not content producers.
I do agree that Apple (and Google) won't get good content deals. The movie/TV industries have realized how badly the music industry got raped by iTMS. Digital downloads are way up, but they just aren't making very much money. Why on earth would movie/TV industries want any piece of that pie. Decreasing prices is certainly good from a consumer POV, but from a producer's view it's bad, unless you can make up the revenue in increased sales. I don't think the price-points exist to make ATV or GTV profitable enough to entice content producers to make "all" (or substantial parts) of their catalogs available.
Content industries are successful because they know how to segment markets. Slashdotters hate it, but that's the way the business is done.
But this doesn't make any sense. Windows 7 is almost brand new. You can't emulate a brand new design so it's comfortable for new users.
I think emulating Windows' DE, but I understand that it could help very ignorant users, although I would seriously question the wisdom of moving them to Linux. However, emulate something familiar like Windows XP.
While I mostly agree with your analysis, I have to put my two cents in.
I think the defining characteristic of fantasy is a reactionary ideology. That is, "fantasy" has some status quo, which is good, peaceful, etc. Some evil emerges that wants to disrupt this harmony, and the entire struggle is basically to return to the status quo. I use the term "evil" because there's no better way to characterize the baddies. Every minion is complete evil and deserves to be washed from the earth/planet. My favorite part is that the good guys technically more closely resemble antagonists (they don't "change" and in fact oppose it); whereas, the bad guys are usually trying to overthrow some thousand year-old harmony, making them protagonists.
Sci-fi is more difficult to characterize. There is certainly my definition of fantasy in many works; however, there are many other outcomes. Fantasy tends to ignore the complexities of real life, and glosses over any complaints that the enemy may have by painting them as completely evil monsters. Sci-fi tends to ignore many of the complexities by internalizing them in technology/"science," but actually presents them to the viewer, although usually in a sock/quirky-value sort of way. Fantasy breaks down if one side isn't evil and single-minded.
Damn, I hate to keep posting on Slashdot about my SO who is a HR recruiter for a tech security firm, but I have to. Hiring managers, who at her company are actually technical people, don't give shit for position requirements. Usually, the recruiter knows a couple of buzz words about the position, salary range, and an education requirement. Since the recruiter hasn't spent time on the project (and the manager doesn't want to spend time selecting candidates), you get bad choices.
*Recruiter takes resume/notes from phone interview to manger*
Manager: This person doesn't have PHP development for X years.
Recruiter: They have Perl, Python, Java, whatever.
Manager: That's not what I asked for, quit wasting my time.
*Recruiter takes info from PHP developer to Manger*
Manager: This person doesn't have enough experience.
Recruiter: How much experience do you want?
Manager: More (typical response).
Recruiter: I will try to find someone that meets the salary constraints.
We give HR a hard time because they seem to bumble around all the time. However, they usually only deal with something for a few minutes. It's just not possible for them to be up to speed. If they were given better specifications, they would make better decisions. However, it all goes back to the manager who wouldn't speed 10 extra minutes creating a job description.
Actually, even though Nvidia does not support KMS their drivers do support running X as a normal user. Users of the ATI proprietary drivers are SOL.
Using KMS does not automatically remove the root requirement. For example, Ubuntu uses KMS drivers for many cards currently, but one of the big improvements for 10.10 will be to run X as a normal user with some drivers.
My point is that there are very few places where they would be enforced. They are a scare tactic, espcially for anyone that reads Slashdot. We aren't exactly the executive types where an ex-employer would bother with (expensive) legal scare-tactics.
Because all those ex-employees are just being retributive...
While maybe a few thieves steal just to harm their victims, the vast majority of thieves are selfish. It doesn't matter what management does (short of keeping the employee); dis-honest people will do dis-honest things to their own betterment.
Otherwise, they'd just throw a brick through the window or do some other vandalism, which would probably cost the company more than stealing office supplies and the like.