No, you didn't miss anything. Arch is for people who believe (correctly or incorrectly) that setting things up yourself so you know exactly how they work is less work in the long run than taking someone elses setup that "mostly works" and tweaking it.
Great documentation and vanilla packages. That about sums it up. It's like Slackware with improved package management.
I've been running systems built from Debian base for about a decade. Recently I kept running into the Arch wiki when I wanted to solve a problem. e.g. if I want to reenable ctrl-alt-backspace in Xorg. If I google that, I get a page full of shitty Ubuntu related solutions that depend on extra packages or gui configuration tools.
But there's one result that sticks out. The Arch wiki provides a nicely organized richly linked list of things you might want to configure, and how to configure them. This is how you collect and present useful information. I figured, if I find myself consistantly using the documentation for a distro, maybe I should check out the actual distro.
So I still use Debian on most of my systems, but have thrown Arch on a couple for fun. It's easy, it works, and it doesn't feel as crufty as Debian does. Package signing will make it a contender for real work. Yay Arch!
How do you know that package signing has never been an issue for you? You could be using a rooted 'login' and never know. Unless you have a checksum, you can't be sure the packages you fetch from arch haven't been tampered with.
Of course they have rights to their ideas. They have the right to use, copy, and modify their ideas all they want. When you get to the point where you're claiming that you can modify my behavior because of an idea you had, that is over the line. My rights to my own body and property are far more fundamental than any supposed rights you claim over your ideas.
True, but the random integration of DNA fragments into cells that are tagged with a selectable marker is a lot different than applying a mutagen and selection pressure. GP seems to think it's the same thing.
The idea that scientists have enough control over DNA to just change bits and pieces according to some grand design gives scientists too much credit. Very seldom is it done that way.
This is done regularly as a research tool. I can't imagine why it would be prohibitively costly or complex to do it for agriculture.
I know you're not trolling. The person who authored that PDF is trolling.
Denatured ethanol is 95% ethanol +5% methanol. If you're talking about dangers from denatured ethanol that are different from the dangers of pure ethanol, you're just talking about methanol. Which is hazardous, yes, but there's no reason to put methanol in fuel. It's an extra step which makes everyone less safe. This is just dumb.
BTW, nowhere in the PDF you linked does he indicate he's specifically talking about denatured ethanol. In fact, his list of potential hazards sounds a lot like he pulled it off of the MSDS for 100% USP grade ethanol. The MSDS are always hyperbolic about risks, you should look up what they say about NaCl (table salt).
Because ethanol is a toxic and hazardous substance, its use is regulated by OSHA, DOT, NFPA and NIOSH. Ethanol must be handled with extreme caution because it can enter the blood stream from breathing the fumes, or by penetration through the skin or mouth. Exposure can irritate the eyes, nose, mouth, and throat. As such, protective clothing, including gloves and splash-proof chemical goggles and face shields should be worn by anyone coming in contact with ethanol.
Please! This is typical bureaucratic bullshit. I handle 99.5% ethanol on the lab bench without goggles or gloves on a daily basis. I've never suffered any sort of injury or intoxication. Essentially pure ethanol is sold over the counter for human consumption under the brand name Everclear.
Gasoline is a far, far more toxic and hazardous substance than Ethanol. If your source has to stoop to such misinformation, then I don't believe a word of it.
The war on drugs was originally a war against hemp. Newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst conspired with Narcotics Commissioner Henry Anslinger to prohibit hemp in order to preserve the value of forest owned by Hearst. So yes, hemp is a wonder crop. That's the entire reason it's illegal to begin with.
Re:Deader Than a Doornail
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, corruption does not imply doing something illegal. Corruption implies doing something unethical.
Yep. Civil libertarians called it 8 years ago. Peace protesters accurately predicted the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars 10 years ago. Labor activists predicted the results of Reaganomics 30 years ago.
Right now they just ask if the comment is good or bad. It's even less granular than the moderation you're supposed to be moderating.
Suppose someone makes an offtopic but informative post. I have to rank the comment good or bad. Suppose I choose "good". If I understand correctly, that means that the moderator who chose "offtopic" is going to get docked and the moderator who chose "informative" is going to get a bonus.
But that's not what should happen at all. I should be able to moderate the individual moderations. In that case I could reward both of those moderators for their accurate moderations. This is what we used to have a couple of iterations of slashcode ago.
I think you expect a little too much organization on the part of our political masters. They do try to manage the news cycle, but they can't predict exactly what the stories will be. I think they're honestly astonished that people actually care about this issue.
No, they're just listening to a different group of corporations for a while. If Google, Amazon, and Facebook were in favor of this, the people wouldn't stand a chance.
I don't meta moderate any more because they made it a pain in the ass to see the comments in context. How can I tell if a comment is fare if I can't see what the comment is replying to?
It's worse than that. They don't even tell you what the previous moderation on the comment was. It's not a meta-moderation if you are not moderating the moderation. The way they have it set up now, it's just a second round of first order moderation.
There's nothing wrong with being supportive of anti-piracy efforts. People deserve to get paid for their work.
This is a non-sequitur. People deserve to get paid for their work, but anti-piracy efforts do nothing to help people get paid. People who pirate spend more on media than people who don't. Cracking down on pirates isn't going to give them any more expendable income to spend on media. Piracy and entertainment industry profits are both at all time highs. Your entire post is based on fiction.
Won't happen. The anti-trust trial was nothing but a shake down. Before the anti-trust trial Microsoft gave almost nothing in donations. They started contributing, and they got a slap on the wrist and allowed to continue anti-competetive behavior.
It's not enough to change the people. We have to change the system. We need publicly financed elections, some form of preference voting, and a "no confidence" option with actual teeth on every ballot.
Slashdot Mirror
You are of course correct. Checksums can be forged, digital signatures cannot. I'm quite aware of the difference, but did not write precisely.
No, you didn't miss anything. Arch is for people who believe (correctly or incorrectly) that setting things up yourself so you know exactly how they work is less work in the long run than taking someone elses setup that "mostly works" and tweaking it.
Great documentation and vanilla packages. That about sums it up. It's like Slackware with improved package management.
I've been running systems built from Debian base for about a decade. Recently I kept running into the Arch wiki when I wanted to solve a problem. e.g. if I want to reenable ctrl-alt-backspace in Xorg. If I google that, I get a page full of shitty Ubuntu related solutions that depend on extra packages or gui configuration tools.
But there's one result that sticks out. The Arch wiki provides a nicely organized richly linked list of things you might want to configure, and how to configure them. This is how you collect and present useful information. I figured, if I find myself consistantly using the documentation for a distro, maybe I should check out the actual distro.
So I still use Debian on most of my systems, but have thrown Arch on a couple for fun. It's easy, it works, and it doesn't feel as crufty as Debian does. Package signing will make it a contender for real work. Yay Arch!
How do you know that package signing has never been an issue for you? You could be using a rooted 'login' and never know. Unless you have a checksum, you can't be sure the packages you fetch from arch haven't been tampered with.
Of course they have rights to their ideas. They have the right to use, copy, and modify their ideas all they want. When you get to the point where you're claiming that you can modify my behavior because of an idea you had, that is over the line. My rights to my own body and property are far more fundamental than any supposed rights you claim over your ideas.
True, but the random integration of DNA fragments into cells that are tagged with a selectable marker is a lot different than applying a mutagen and selection pressure. GP seems to think it's the same thing.
The idea that scientists have enough control over DNA to just change bits and pieces according to some grand design gives scientists too much credit. Very seldom is it done that way.
This is done regularly as a research tool. I can't imagine why it would be prohibitively costly or complex to do it for agriculture.
do you really think BASF and Monsanto and the others do "playing mix-n-match genomes hands-on via gene-splicing." ?
Yes, that's exactly what they do. Why do you think they wouldn't?
I know you're not trolling. The person who authored that PDF is trolling.
Denatured ethanol is 95% ethanol +5% methanol. If you're talking about dangers from denatured ethanol that are different from the dangers of pure ethanol, you're just talking about methanol. Which is hazardous, yes, but there's no reason to put methanol in fuel. It's an extra step which makes everyone less safe. This is just dumb.
BTW, nowhere in the PDF you linked does he indicate he's specifically talking about denatured ethanol. In fact, his list of potential hazards sounds a lot like he pulled it off of the MSDS for 100% USP grade ethanol. The MSDS are always hyperbolic about risks, you should look up what they say about NaCl (table salt).
Because ethanol is a toxic and hazardous substance, its use is regulated by OSHA, DOT,
NFPA and NIOSH. Ethanol must be handled with extreme caution because it can enter the
blood stream from breathing the fumes, or by penetration through the skin or mouth. Exposure
can irritate the eyes, nose, mouth, and throat. As such, protective clothing, including gloves
and splash-proof chemical goggles and face shields should be worn by anyone coming in
contact with ethanol.
Please! This is typical bureaucratic bullshit. I handle 99.5% ethanol on the lab bench without goggles or gloves on a daily basis. I've never suffered any sort of injury or intoxication. Essentially pure ethanol is sold over the counter for human consumption under the brand name Everclear.
Gasoline is a far, far more toxic and hazardous substance than Ethanol. If your source has to stoop to such misinformation, then I don't believe a word of it.
The war on drugs was originally a war against hemp. Newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst conspired with Narcotics Commissioner Henry Anslinger to prohibit hemp in order to preserve the value of forest owned by Hearst. So yes, hemp is a wonder crop. That's the entire reason it's illegal to begin with.
No, corruption does not imply doing something illegal. Corruption implies doing something unethical.
"16. Deserts will become tropical forests (jim300) (Likelihood 7/10)"
More like 1/10. Where's the water coming from?
Warmer temperatures means increased moisture carrying capacity in the atmosphere. The Sahara was once a rain forest, and it can be so again.
No kidding. First time I've heard his full name. Hi Timothy.
Was he the only journalist at CES? I never heard that name before last week.
Getting? It was ridiculous eight years ago.
Yep. Civil libertarians called it 8 years ago. Peace protesters accurately predicted the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars 10 years ago. Labor activists predicted the results of Reaganomics 30 years ago.
So when are the people going to start listening?
Right now they just ask if the comment is good or bad. It's even less granular than the moderation you're supposed to be moderating.
Suppose someone makes an offtopic but informative post. I have to rank the comment good or bad. Suppose I choose "good". If I understand correctly, that means that the moderator who chose "offtopic" is going to get docked and the moderator who chose "informative" is going to get a bonus.
But that's not what should happen at all. I should be able to moderate the individual moderations. In that case I could reward both of those moderators for their accurate moderations. This is what we used to have a couple of iterations of slashcode ago.
I think you expect a little too much organization on the part of our political masters. They do try to manage the news cycle, but they can't predict exactly what the stories will be. I think they're honestly astonished that people actually care about this issue.
No, they're just listening to a different group of corporations for a while. If Google, Amazon, and Facebook were in favor of this, the people wouldn't stand a chance.
I don't meta moderate any more because they made it a pain in the ass to see the comments in context. How can I tell if a comment is fare if I can't see what the comment is replying to?
It's worse than that. They don't even tell you what the previous moderation on the comment was. It's not a meta-moderation if you are not moderating the moderation. The way they have it set up now, it's just a second round of first order moderation.
So where does a private individual get a dosimeter badge?
There's nothing wrong with being supportive of anti-piracy efforts. People deserve to get paid for their work.
This is a non-sequitur. People deserve to get paid for their work, but anti-piracy efforts do nothing to help people get paid. People who pirate spend more on media than people who don't. Cracking down on pirates isn't going to give them any more expendable income to spend on media. Piracy and entertainment industry profits are both at all time highs. Your entire post is based on fiction.
20 year copyright term limits won't stop a bit of piracy. Copyright itself is simply untenable in the digital era.
Won't happen. The anti-trust trial was nothing but a shake down. Before the anti-trust trial Microsoft gave almost nothing in donations. They started contributing, and they got a slap on the wrist and allowed to continue anti-competetive behavior.
It's not enough to change the people. We have to change the system. We need publicly financed elections, some form of preference voting, and a "no confidence" option with actual teeth on every ballot.