Where the Pirate Bay was started. They seem to have quite a few freeloading idiots who feel they shouldn't have to pay for things, and don't understand how economics works.
Something you, of course, do understand. Which somehow I doubt given that most Nobel laureates in economics wouldn't make that claim. That both the movie and music industries seem to be doing better and better despite the freeloaders reinforces that impression.
So if they can't enforce a fine, then what happens if you don't pay the straffavgift?
I doubt that it would end up in court. There is an agency called "Kronofogdemyndigheten" (Swedish Enforcement Authority) who's responsibility it is to collect debts no one has been able to collect. If you have an unpaid debt that end up with them you get something called "betalningsanmärkning" (erm... note of payment default perhaps). Something no-one in Sweden wants as it makes it pretty much impossible to get loans, telephone contracts, bank accounts, etc, etc for five years. It's a pretty strong incentive to pay your debts and bills.
It sounds like they don't have any authority to actually run things. While I appreciate the enforcement of privacy, does that also apply to businesses? Are they not allowed to keep track of who shop-lifted or passed bad forms of payment or otherwise...
Storing personal information in Sweden is thoroughly regulated with progressively tougher demands depending on the sensitivity of the information. It's doubtful you would be allowed to store any information about the behaviour of a person in a personally identifiable manner. Companies that give credits are allowed to store information about the payment history of individuals, but only for a limited time and with strict requirements on how that data can be used and shared.
...caused problems and they don't want to let into their business again?
You are not yourself allowed to hinder or detain someone unless they have commited a crime, only the Police or licenced security guards are allowed to do that. Which causes a bit of a headache for the company running the subway actually as their personell aren't allowed to hinder anyone from leaving the premises instead of showing their ticket without backup from the police or a guard (IIRC).
Actually the headline should be: "Random guy designs pi case that is annoying as hell, pledges money back to foundation to alleviate pain of using it".
The protrusion around the USB ports will create annoyances, ethernet cables won't "click" and lock into place due to the base being in the way and, as you said, the HDMI-port will probably create problems as well. Not really a shining example of good industrial design.
I sometimes wish that he makes it to be the Rep candidate and then gets elected. So we can finally see how that "self-healing properties" of economy really work out.
It's gonna be some horrible years, but maybe we can at least start building after that idea gets cleaned up.
Hasn't the Bush's already shown that? I mean, the richest 400 people in the USA has the net worth of the poorest 150 000 000. I have a hard time seeing it was like that before Reagan/Bush/Bush.
Why do you really struggle? Is it due to the paywall and absurd model or is it the pain of opening your wallet?
I agree with your opinion on the content, and had I the time to read more than one article a week I'd pay up in no time. The words and minds are worth paying for.
Put a lot of flammable liquid in a bin, dyed as Coca-Cola in 2 liter bottles (better yet, glass bottles, gotta love shrapnel) with a twin stage explosive in each bottle. This of course requires that the bottles are discarded before the xrays though
Crap now I'll probably be added to the shit-list as well.
To allow a non root user to in essence do root commands without prompting for a password just begs to be exploited.
I don't agree. First, we are talking about a desktop distro, and not a server: on a desktop the admin=the user.
Second, if a user with physical access to the machine wants to exploit it, installing a package and searching for something to exploit would be the hard way. Just reboot, enter grub and start with runnlevel 1. There. root.
I don't agree. First, you're doing it wrong. You should be the admin and the user. Those accounts should not be the same (as implied by the = )
Second, if a user is good enough know how to install stuff, does that mean he groks GRUB and runlevels? My brother does the first, not the last. I trust him with my computer and account any day, because he doesn't know my password, thus can only damage my (backed-up) $HOME.
But it does affect me lending my laptop to my mate, or my brother my desktop, for just a while. They're linux-savvy enough to know how to install stuff, but not savvy enough to always know the consequences. If they don't have my pass, they can't install. Simple. Right?
It makes sense if you want to be able to install trusted apps without having to enter or know the root password.
You mean like sudo and gksudo? No surely you can't mean them, they've been used for a gazillion years now and work splendidly. And as far as I know no distro has been *ahem* "brave" enough to ship them set to execute apt-get without a password yet.
Does it somehow harm you if someone else thinks that this is a good feature? I'll repeat what I told someone else: if you aren't comfortable with this, don't use it.
Of course someone thinking this is a good feature doesn't harm me. Someone deciding for me to change the way my computer looks on software installation might though.
Installing software is a system-level change affecting all users of a system. Those changes commonly require consent of the administrator of the system to apply. That has been the default for ages. Neither you or anyone else has so far made a good case for why it is a good idea to change that default. It's not about if I can disable it, I know I can, but should I have to? Someone (perhaps that someone you are talking about) out there has made a decision for me that I should be using it. That person is not making his case very clear and neither are you.
You are of course correct about setuid etc, and although I could argue about expectations a bit more, the rest of my post still stands.
From a desktop standpoint (Fedora is a desktop OS, not an enterprise one), it makes perfect sense to allow a user to install software that's already been verified as clean of malware without having to escalate their privileges.
I think you can find plenty of posts here describing software a person might not want his friend, colleague or brother installing on his computer. But some: GDM, anything with suid root, any networking daemon (yeah yeah, they're disabled on boot, but can still be run)... All users are not *NIX literate enough to root you by borrowing your laptop, but they can still be good enough in a terminal to install a bunch of crap I don't want.
And besides, if you don't like it, it's superd00per easy to disable. If you can't figure out how to disable it, you probably should be administering a server with anything remotely important on it.
Nice ad-hominem there. This issue doesn't apply to servers by the way. And i got out of the admin-business a while ago, so no worries. But: It used to be "easy": pklalockdown –lockdown org.freedesktop.packagekit.package-install but that command is deprecated. In the oh so nice future I'll have to go edit/var/lib/polkit-1/localauthority/50-local.d/10-my-pkgkit-policy.pkla and put some semi-documented commands in it. Most users/admins of Fedora will probably just google it, not read the man page or docs, and end up with a configuration they might not understand.BAD DEFAULT
Everybody just keeps repeating "It makes perfekt sense". I have not seen a single good argument for in what way it does.
God. Reading that thread made further reinforced my commitment never to install Fedora. I would dearly like to see the "use-cases" that Richard Hughes fella has dreamed up to rationalize this change.
there seems to be an assumption of targeting the desktop, or single user environments...
Raise your hand if you've lent your computer to a user who wouldn't know how to root your box but wouldn't have any problems finding a package in a list. Would you want that user to install one of 15 000 packages?
I don't get it. How does it make sense? To spare you the inconvenience of typing fewer letters you did on that post?
I can only see a single edge case where this makes sense, and that is when the computer is a stationary computer used by a single computer. OK, this is/. perhaps not an edge case over here. But seriously, a lot of people borrow my laptop. I don't want them to be able to install anything without my consent.
As a lot of people in the thread said: This changes XX years of unix practice. $HOME is for users, the rest is for root. Allowing someone who is not root to install software system-wide is not what is expected. Which by definition is bad.
I did. It says so quite clearly, the "I'd say..." part you know
I think most people go through their lives without "turning to" people like Mao as a "philosopher". And certainly without calling someone like Mao a philosopher at all.
Have you actually read Mao? Do you know what he wrote about? I haven't, but I'm not the one calling his philosophical credentials into question.
But millions of Americans are troubled by the level of comfort that Obama and his administration have with communists, and the discomfort they have with capitalism.
That is relevant context for your feelings and opinions, but not for that clip. It doesn't make ignoring what she is saying correct. Ignoring that is ignoring context.
If there's important context left out that refutes that, I didn't see it in your post. I only see you putting words in her mouth after the fact.
So you don't think that what she is actually saying matters? That she is trying to make a point about choice? Those are her words. That is worthless context compared to the fact that she calls Mao a philosopher? What she says after they quit subtitling doesn't matter?
He has fully understood that being aggressive tends to inspire fight or flight responses, strongly emotional, non-contemplated. It takes quite a lot of both will-power and calm to face someone shouting at you without responding in kind.
Example, please? People say outrageous things, and then use "out of context" like a magic wand, without ever explaining what the context is.
Well, the first clip in parent's parent's comment is actually a pretty good example (mind you, I'm not from the US, so I might be wearing different spectacles). While he does provide some context in that he shows a big part of the speech, he neither seems to understand or acknowledge the context. He either wilfully ignores, or is ignorant of, what she is actually saying just to paint her, and Mr Obama, as communists.
1: He is not listening to what she is saying. She actually says that Mao and Mother Theresa are her favourites for making the point she's making: "...but the two people I turn to most, to basically deliver a simple point..."
2: It is actually quite interesting that they stop subtitling the video at the point where she starts explaining that your freedom is yours. That you can do what you want and don't have to follow dogma or preconception. That is the context that he is ignoring. I'd actually say that using Mao as well as Mother Theresa as an example is pretty smart. It shows that with freedom to take your own path comes great responsibility, take a wrong turn and forget the consequences of your actions and you may fall to "evil".
3: Another quite essential part that he is missing is that normal people do not need to agree 100% with their "favourite philosophers", it is quite all right to pick and choose in most cases. And the point he makes about Mein Kampff in the end only reinforces that perspective (as well as making me shout "Godwin!" to further invalidate him.
I can't help but wondering if it is a matter of size. It seems, just from casual observation, that the bigger the publisher gets the less inclined it gets to allow innovation. Actually that seems to be a pattern in most areas, perhaps, as profits and revenues increase, human caution kicks in. More to loose, less to gain so to speak.
Taking risks is only natural for those with either nothing to loose or with enough resources that a loss doesn't matter.
Of course this is just speculation, and I have enough papers to read to bother looking into this. Anyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
Where the Pirate Bay was started. They seem to have quite a few freeloading idiots who feel they shouldn't have to pay for things, and don't understand how economics works.
Something you, of course, do understand. Which somehow I doubt given that most Nobel laureates in economics wouldn't make that claim. That both the movie and music industries seem to be doing better and better despite the freeloaders reinforces that impression.
So if they can't enforce a fine, then what happens if you don't pay the straffavgift?
I doubt that it would end up in court. There is an agency called "Kronofogdemyndigheten" (Swedish Enforcement Authority) who's responsibility it is to collect debts no one has been able to collect. If you have an unpaid debt that end up with them you get something called "betalningsanmärkning" (erm... note of payment default perhaps). Something no-one in Sweden wants as it makes it pretty much impossible to get loans, telephone contracts, bank accounts, etc, etc for five years. It's a pretty strong incentive to pay your debts and bills.
It sounds like they don't have any authority to actually run things. While I appreciate the enforcement of privacy, does that also apply to businesses? Are they not allowed to keep track of who shop-lifted or passed bad forms of payment or otherwise...
Storing personal information in Sweden is thoroughly regulated with progressively tougher demands depending on the sensitivity of the information. It's doubtful you would be allowed to store any information about the behaviour of a person in a personally identifiable manner. Companies that give credits are allowed to store information about the payment history of individuals, but only for a limited time and with strict requirements on how that data can be used and shared.
...caused problems and they don't want to let into their business again?
You are not yourself allowed to hinder or detain someone unless they have commited a crime, only the Police or licenced security guards are allowed to do that. Which causes a bit of a headache for the company running the subway actually as their personell aren't allowed to hinder anyone from leaving the premises instead of showing their ticket without backup from the police or a guard (IIRC).
Opening the first link in a new tab led me to get redirected to http://a.ldowi.com/click/?s=108520&c=923468&subid=2, which seems to be a "MoboMarket.apk" file. Anyone else?
Actually the headline should be: "Random guy designs pi case that is annoying as hell, pledges money back to foundation to alleviate pain of using it".
The protrusion around the USB ports will create annoyances, ethernet cables won't "click" and lock into place due to the base being in the way and, as you said, the HDMI-port will probably create problems as well. Not really a shining example of good industrial design.
I sometimes wish that he makes it to be the Rep candidate and then gets elected. So we can finally see how that "self-healing properties" of economy really work out.
It's gonna be some horrible years, but maybe we can at least start building after that idea gets cleaned up.
Hasn't the Bush's already shown that? I mean, the richest 400 people in the USA has the net worth of the poorest 150 000 000. I have a hard time seeing it was like that before Reagan/Bush/Bush.
Re: sig; In Corporate America money owns you.
Why do you really struggle? Is it due to the paywall and absurd model or is it the pain of opening your wallet? I agree with your opinion on the content, and had I the time to read more than one article a week I'd pay up in no time. The words and minds are worth paying for.
So they're using social engineering to do a cross corporate hijacking of your browser choice. Nice one
Put a lot of flammable liquid in a bin, dyed as Coca-Cola in 2 liter bottles (better yet, glass bottles, gotta love shrapnel) with a twin stage explosive in each bottle. This of course requires that the bottles are discarded before the xrays though
Crap now I'll probably be added to the shit-list as well.
I stand corrected, it seems CHI uses ACM with some tweaks.
Since they were using Adobe, it's not likely that they were using LaTeX.
Except the .dvi file extension. And: Creator: dvips(k) 5.97 Copyright 2008 Radical Eye Software
Acrobat was probably only used to convert the ps to pdf.
Looks like LaTeX with a CHI template. But maybe that was what you were getting at? Pretty it is.
Nail firmly hit on head :)
To allow a non root user to in essence do root commands without prompting for a password just begs to be exploited.
I don't agree. First, we are talking about a desktop distro, and not a server: on a desktop the admin=the user. Second, if a user with physical access to the machine wants to exploit it, installing a package and searching for something to exploit would be the hard way. Just reboot, enter grub and start with runnlevel 1. There. root.
I don't agree. First, you're doing it wrong. You should be the admin and the user. Those accounts should not be the same (as implied by the = )
Second, if a user is good enough know how to install stuff, does that mean he groks GRUB and runlevels? My brother does the first, not the last. I trust him with my computer and account any day, because he doesn't know my password, thus can only damage my (backed-up) $HOME.
But it does affect me lending my laptop to my mate, or my brother my desktop, for just a while. They're linux-savvy enough to know how to install stuff, but not savvy enough to always know the consequences. If they don't have my pass, they can't install. Simple. Right?
It makes sense if you want to be able to install trusted apps without having to enter or know the root password.
You mean like sudo and gksudo? No surely you can't mean them, they've been used for a gazillion years now and work splendidly. And as far as I know no distro has been *ahem* "brave" enough to ship them set to execute apt-get without a password yet.
(gotta say I love your sig though)
Does it somehow harm you if someone else thinks that this is a good feature? I'll repeat what I told someone else: if you aren't comfortable with this, don't use it.
Of course someone thinking this is a good feature doesn't harm me. Someone deciding for me to change the way my computer looks on software installation might though.
Installing software is a system-level change affecting all users of a system. Those changes commonly require consent of the administrator of the system to apply. That has been the default for ages. Neither you or anyone else has so far made a good case for why it is a good idea to change that default. It's not about if I can disable it, I know I can, but should I have to? Someone (perhaps that someone you are talking about) out there has made a decision for me that I should be using it. That person is not making his case very clear and neither are you.
You are of course correct about setuid etc, and although I could argue about expectations a bit more, the rest of my post still stands.
From a desktop standpoint (Fedora is a desktop OS, not an enterprise one), it makes perfect sense to allow a user to install software that's already been verified as clean of malware without having to escalate their privileges.
I think you can find plenty of posts here describing software a person might not want his friend, colleague or brother installing on his computer. But some: GDM, anything with suid root, any networking daemon (yeah yeah, they're disabled on boot, but can still be run)... All users are not *NIX literate enough to root you by borrowing your laptop, but they can still be good enough in a terminal to install a bunch of crap I don't want.
And besides, if you don't like it, it's superd00per easy to disable. If you can't figure out how to disable it, you probably should be administering a server with anything remotely important on it.
Nice ad-hominem there. This issue doesn't apply to servers by the way. And i got out of the admin-business a while ago, so no worries. But: It used to be "easy": pklalockdown –lockdown org.freedesktop.packagekit.package-install but that command is deprecated. In the oh so nice future I'll have to go edit /var/lib/polkit-1/localauthority/50-local.d/10-my-pkgkit-policy.pkla and put some semi-documented commands in it. Most users/admins of Fedora will probably just google it, not read the man page or docs, and end up with a configuration they might not understand.BAD DEFAULT
Everybody just keeps repeating "It makes perfekt sense". I have not seen a single good argument for in what way it does.
Cf another gem of a comment on Bugzilla: I don't particularly care how UNIX has always worked. Sigh.
God. Reading that thread made further reinforced my commitment never to install Fedora. I would dearly like to see the "use-cases" that Richard Hughes fella has dreamed up to rationalize this change.
You beat me to it. And to reinforce that for you:
there seems to be an assumption of targeting the desktop, or single user environments...
Raise your hand if you've lent your computer to a user who wouldn't know how to root your box but wouldn't have any problems finding a package in a list. Would you want that user to install one of 15 000 packages?
Here's a blog post on how to disable it: polkit and package kit and changing settings
I might be getting a bit conservative in my old age but what of what is explained in that post is better than visudo?
I don't get it. How does it make sense? To spare you the inconvenience of typing fewer letters you did on that post?
I can only see a single edge case where this makes sense, and that is when the computer is a stationary computer used by a single computer. OK, this is /. perhaps not an edge case over here. But seriously, a lot of people borrow my laptop. I don't want them to be able to install anything without my consent.
As a lot of people in the thread said: This changes XX years of unix practice. $HOME is for users, the rest is for root. Allowing someone who is not root to install software system-wide is not what is expected. Which by definition is bad.
Did she say that, or did you?
I did. It says so quite clearly, the "I'd say..." part you know
I think most people go through their lives without "turning to" people like Mao as a "philosopher". And certainly without calling someone like Mao a philosopher at all.
Have you actually read Mao? Do you know what he wrote about? I haven't, but I'm not the one calling his philosophical credentials into question.
But millions of Americans are troubled by the level of comfort that Obama and his administration have with communists, and the discomfort they have with capitalism.
That is relevant context for your feelings and opinions, but not for that clip. It doesn't make ignoring what she is saying correct. Ignoring that is ignoring context.
If there's important context left out that refutes that, I didn't see it in your post. I only see you putting words in her mouth after the fact.
So you don't think that what she is actually saying matters? That she is trying to make a point about choice? Those are her words. That is worthless context compared to the fact that she calls Mao a philosopher? What she says after they quit subtitling doesn't matter?
+1000 insightful.
He has fully understood that being aggressive tends to inspire fight or flight responses, strongly emotional, non-contemplated. It takes quite a lot of both will-power and calm to face someone shouting at you without responding in kind.
Example, please? People say outrageous things, and then use "out of context" like a magic wand, without ever explaining what the context is.
Well, the first clip in parent's parent's comment is actually a pretty good example (mind you, I'm not from the US, so I might be wearing different spectacles). While he does provide some context in that he shows a big part of the speech, he neither seems to understand or acknowledge the context. He either wilfully ignores, or is ignorant of, what she is actually saying just to paint her, and Mr Obama, as communists.
1: He is not listening to what she is saying. She actually says that Mao and Mother Theresa are her favourites for making the point she's making: "...but the two people I turn to most, to basically deliver a simple point..."
2: It is actually quite interesting that they stop subtitling the video at the point where she starts explaining that your freedom is yours. That you can do what you want and don't have to follow dogma or preconception. That is the context that he is ignoring. I'd actually say that using Mao as well as Mother Theresa as an example is pretty smart. It shows that with freedom to take your own path comes great responsibility, take a wrong turn and forget the consequences of your actions and you may fall to "evil".
3: Another quite essential part that he is missing is that normal people do not need to agree 100% with their "favourite philosophers", it is quite all right to pick and choose in most cases. And the point he makes about Mein Kampff in the end only reinforces that perspective (as well as making me shout "Godwin!" to further invalidate him.
I can't help but wondering if it is a matter of size. It seems, just from casual observation, that the bigger the publisher gets the less inclined it gets to allow innovation. Actually that seems to be a pattern in most areas, perhaps, as profits and revenues increase, human caution kicks in. More to loose, less to gain so to speak.
Taking risks is only natural for those with either nothing to loose or with enough resources that a loss doesn't matter.
Of course this is just speculation, and I have enough papers to read to bother looking into this. Anyone else?