I don't see why that should be necessary. Debian is already the name of the OS - and it has at least 3 variations, one of which is Linux. Debian Linux is an appropriate name. Stallman had a reasonable point back when Linus was distributing Linux as part of an otherwise straightforward GNU operating system but with a different kernel, and people started referring to the the GNU part of the OS as "Linux" instead of Linux itself (the kernel - the part that users almost never actually see), but a lot has changed since then. Yes, Debian is built upon GNU, but also a lot of software other than GNU. If you replaced the GNU bits with - for example- the FreeBSD equivalents then very few people would notice.
That being said, the Debian project seems to agree with you and actually does refer to the OS as Debian GNU/Linux a lot of the time (along with Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/HURD).
According to Patreon's blog entry, previously creators received anywhere from 85%-93% of donations. Now they receive exactly 95% of pledges, but only a part of the amount paid by the patron counts as "the pledge".
Let x be the total amount paid by a patron for a pledge, and p be the value of the pledge. x = 1.029p + 0.35
Solving for the worst case, where the 95% of the pledge that the creator receives is at least 85% of all money donated, to match that under the new system the patron would need to pledge at least $3.95, which would cost the patron $4.42. That's what a patron will need to pay to avoid the creator receiving less than the worst case under the old system. Paying $5 is hardly better - let's look at the $1-$5 range, which is what most patrons are probably giving:
From now on, patrons who pledge $1 have to pay $1.38, and the creator receives less than 69% of that. Patrons who want to pay $1 to each of their recipients are out of luck, and must choose between increasing their monthly Patreon expense or give up donating. When patrons spend $5 the creator sees less that 86% of that, which is basically the same as the old system's worst case.
Okay, but at what point does the new system work out better for the creator than the old system's best case? The answer is: never. Even if a donor pledges a million dollars a month the creator gets barely over 92% of it.
---
To sum it all up, Patreon is raising its fees dramatically, so instead of creators receiving 85%-93% of money given by patrons, they will now receive 69%-86% in practice.
In addition, they will also have fewer patrons because new hidden fees on the payer's side will turn many potential and existing patrons off.
And on top of that, the minimum pledge of $1 now costs 38% extra, all the patrons who used to sponsor multiple creators at $1 each but aren't willing to pay 38% extra per month on Patreon will now have to choose between dropping more than a third of their sponsored creators or dropping out of Patreon entirely. Either way, creators lose many of their patrons.
If Patreon simply hiked their fees honestly instead of instead of adding the extra "35c plus 2.9% of your pledge that that count as part of your pledge" hidden service fee for patrons to disguise the fee hike then it would creators would grumble about losing roughly an eighth of their net revenue but at least wouldn't be losing patrons too. Keeping all the fees on the receiver's is better for everybody.
Thanks for clearing that up. To be honest, I don't know the first thing about heat pipes or heating in general (and it probably shows) because people rarely need heating where I live.
...um, I think you completely misread GP. The phrase "EVEN a modern heat pump is better than straight electric heating" implies that GP thinks heat pumps are a very bad way to heat a home (so bad, in fact, that being worse than that is notable). You're saying that heat pumps suck, which means you're actually agreeing with that assessment.
Not in this case. The "dynamic range" in HDR is the ratio of the highest and lowest value of the signal the display can produce. With a "dynamic" HDR there isn't a fixed ratio - it can be changed as conditions demand. There is repetition of a word, but without redundancy.
On the other hand, "LED diode" isn't wrong as such either; it's redundant, but redundancy itself often has a purpose: clarification. For example, if I mention an "ATM machine" you probably know that I'm talking about an automatic teller even if I was using that term in the middle of a conversation about network protocols.
That's not a counterargument - that's just changing the subject by bringing up an entirely different argument. The old extensions could stop working any time the browser updated. With WebExtensions extensions are not only much easier to make (in my experience), but they are future-compatible because they rely on defined APIs rather then just hooking into the browser's code du jour. So GP is correct: the move to webextensions is going to expand the ecosystem of maintained extensions, and that is "the lamest shit reason" to complain about FF 57 since in actual fact 57 fixes the problem you're complaining about.
A completely different issue is that now, instead of an extension being able to do anything that the browser could conceivably do, the functionality of an extension is limited to what APIs have been defined and implemented for WebExtensions. Many of the addons that worked for previous versions of Firefox don't work on Firefox 57 and can't be ported because there are no APIs. There are some addons that I'm not too keen on doing without, so instead of upgrading to 57 I personally am moving back to 52ESR until the extension functionality I want is possible.
Well, you could use "what I'm seeing is actually the edge of the disc" as your next hypothesis, and test it. From the hypothesis, it follows that there is no more ocean or land beyond that point. So all you need to do is travel there and see for yourself. Easiest if you pick a spot that's actually on land.
Alternatively, you could test the "what I'm seeing is the curvature of a sphere" hypothesis by repeating the weather balloon experiment from different locations and seeing if the "edge" remains constant or if it depends on where you're looking from.
Same problem, different name. AMD now uses what they call PSP, which is essentially their own version of IME.
As much as I'd like to support AMD adoption, they're unlikely to back off on PSP if everyone who dislikes IME switches to AMD without holding them to the same standard. If you want to see a change it might be better to loudly complain about IME while commenting that you would switch to AMD if only they didn't have the same problem. Maybe then AMD would eventually notice that they're missing out on a lot of potential customers. Maybe.
If AMD at least provided a mechanism for the actual owners to control the key used for TrustZone (along with maybe the source to a barebones firmware with all the trade secret magic stubbed out) then that would probably be enough.
From Mozilla.org: "Pocket strips away clutter and saves the page in a clean, distraction-free view". Why can't I have a clean distraction-free view without an account?
You don't need an account for that. I think you tripped over the fallacy of the inverse. The whole point of Pocket is to save the page so that you can view it on any other device that is connected to the same account. The quote you refer to says that an effect of Pocket is that the page gets saved in a de-cluttered form, but it doesn't say that Pocket is the only way to get that de-cluttered view, because it isn't - if you want a clean distraction-free view without an account then just press the "Enter Reader View" button on the URL bar. It's the icon that looks like an open book.
from TFS: "They play just as crucial a role in pollinating... [as honeybees]"
That's not what TFS says. "They" refers to wild bees in general (and arguably feral bees too), not specifically the bumblebees from the study - and they are being compared only to "managed colonies of honeybees" rather than honeybees in general.
How do they know what email address to send the phishing messages to? Is there a way to determine the author's email address from the Chrome store, or are they using information shared by the authors elsewhere?
Didn't we just have a (absolutely stupid) story about how password complexity rules are bad?
No, we didn't. We got a story about how one particular guide to making strong passwords wasn't good advice after all, according to the author. That advice guided people to making short passwords that included a capital, a lowercase letter, a digit and a special character, or variations thereof, and the author conceded that allowing long multi-word passwords is actually stronger than the short obfuscated ones that he recommended many years ago.
This story is that some sites allow you to give yourself a ridiculously weak password (for example, a single lowercase letter).
Both stories agree that password complexity rules are good.
I personally feel that browsers should consider blocking all external scripts on HTTPS pages unless those scripts have a matching integrity attribute, or at least make valid integrity for foreign scripts a requirement for avoiding the Mixed Content warning.
Urgh, sorry - I just expanded an abbreviated reply to Zero__Kelvin and see that it's you showing that you already know all that. Sorry for lecturing you on something you already understand.
No it doesn't. That section of RFC 2181 says that a DNS server isn't allowed to refuse to serve a zone because a DNS label in the zone isn't a valid hostname. It does not say that any valid DNS label is a valid hostname, and it does not say that a DNS client must resolve an invalid hostname. If fact, RFC 2181 doesn't define what is or is not a valid hostname at all - for that you should consult RFC 952 (with a small amendment in RFC 1123).
Basically, you are allowed to use whatever you want as a DNS label but if it contains anything other than letters, numbers and ASCII minus signs then it is not a hostname and you can't expect it to resolve as one (in fact, underscores are sometimes recommended as a means of preventing non-host labels from clashing with hostnames precisely because they are not valid hostnames). Netflix is the only one at fault in this particular instance because it was trying to name a host ipv6_1-cxl0-c088, which up until now has been working only by accident.
I hadn't heard of ProtonMail, but I just had a look and made an account for myself. Thank you for spreading the word - I'm very impressed so far. Pity about the 500 meg storage limit for free accounts - it's reasonable, but we're so spoilt by Google's "more than you will ever need" limit.
The question on whether the Doctor is capable of regenerating into a woman has been one of those little mysteries about the character that has gone on for decades. He was originally male and every single time he regenerated he came back as another man. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, war, 9, 10, meta-crisis (yes, it was sort of a cloning rather than a regular regeneration, but it still cost a life and was part Donna so it could have justifiably have gone either way), 11, 12 - that's 13 regenerations in a row, all men. It was confirmed in The Doctor's Wife it was confirmed that Time Lords can change sex when they regenerate, but at the same time it also confirmed that individual Time Lords can have a certain trait that persists through every regeneration, leaving open the possibility of the Doctor in particular being necessarily male. I suppose there's some appeal to having some long-standing mysteries about the Doctor, but in my opinion that one had more than enough of a run and needed to make way to allow the producers to pick whatever act(o)r(ess) they like best for the part.
I hope they have a bit of fun with the reveal, like the Doctor rushing to a mirror, staring wide-eyed at her reflection and saying something like: "I can't believe it. I'm... STILL not ginger? Come on!"
Thanks, good to know. I haven't actually tried that one myself. I was planning to give Let's Encrypt another shot with some of the other clients, and happened to be looking through the list just before this story hit.
I was put off Let's Encrypt too, also purely because the letsencrypt program makes a severe mess of the system. However, there are many other ACME clients, and even letsencrypt.org itself no longer recommends letsencrypt (it recommends certbot at the moment, and also has around 73 other suggested clients if certbot isn't what you want).
The word "artist" in the broader sense of this context refers to the one (or ones) who directly created the work of art in question. A piece of music is regarded as a work of art for this purpose, and in the specific context of a piece of music "the artist" usually refers to the performers, often by band name. But not every piece is a recording of a performance, so the word "artist" is used in place of a more awkward title, such as "performer or whatever term applies"
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why that should be necessary. Debian is already the name of the OS - and it has at least 3 variations, one of which is Linux. Debian Linux is an appropriate name. Stallman had a reasonable point back when Linus was distributing Linux as part of an otherwise straightforward GNU operating system but with a different kernel, and people started referring to the the GNU part of the OS as "Linux" instead of Linux itself (the kernel - the part that users almost never actually see), but a lot has changed since then. Yes, Debian is built upon GNU, but also a lot of software other than GNU. If you replaced the GNU bits with - for example- the FreeBSD equivalents then very few people would notice.
That being said, the Debian project seems to agree with you and actually does refer to the OS as Debian GNU/Linux a lot of the time (along with Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/HURD).
According to Patreon's blog entry, previously creators received anywhere from 85%-93% of donations. Now they receive exactly 95% of pledges, but only a part of the amount paid by the patron counts as "the pledge".
Let x be the total amount paid by a patron for a pledge, and p be the value of the pledge.
x = 1.029p + 0.35
Solving for the worst case, where the 95% of the pledge that the creator receives is at least 85% of all money donated, to match that under the new system the patron would need to pledge at least $3.95, which would cost the patron $4.42. That's what a patron will need to pay to avoid the creator receiving less than the worst case under the old system. Paying $5 is hardly better - let's look at the $1-$5 range, which is what most patrons are probably giving:
From now on, patrons who pledge $1 have to pay $1.38, and the creator receives less than 69% of that. Patrons who want to pay $1 to each of their recipients are out of luck, and must choose between increasing their monthly Patreon expense or give up donating. When patrons spend $5 the creator sees less that 86% of that, which is basically the same as the old system's worst case.
Okay, but at what point does the new system work out better for the creator than the old system's best case? The answer is: never. Even if a donor pledges a million dollars a month the creator gets barely over 92% of it.
---
To sum it all up, Patreon is raising its fees dramatically, so instead of creators receiving 85%-93% of money given by patrons, they will now receive 69%-86% in practice.
In addition, they will also have fewer patrons because new hidden fees on the payer's side will turn many potential and existing patrons off.
And on top of that, the minimum pledge of $1 now costs 38% extra, all the patrons who used to sponsor multiple creators at $1 each but aren't willing to pay 38% extra per month on Patreon will now have to choose between dropping more than a third of their sponsored creators or dropping out of Patreon entirely. Either way, creators lose many of their patrons.
If Patreon simply hiked their fees honestly instead of instead of adding the extra "35c plus 2.9% of your pledge that that count as part of your pledge" hidden service fee for patrons to disguise the fee hike then it would creators would grumble about losing roughly an eighth of their net revenue but at least wouldn't be losing patrons too. Keeping all the fees on the receiver's is better for everybody.
Thanks for clearing that up. To be honest, I don't know the first thing about heat pipes or heating in general (and it probably shows) because people rarely need heating where I live.
...um, I think you completely misread GP. The phrase "EVEN a modern heat pump is better than straight electric heating" implies that GP thinks heat pumps are a very bad way to heat a home (so bad, in fact, that being worse than that is notable). You're saying that heat pumps suck, which means you're actually agreeing with that assessment.
Not in this case. The "dynamic range" in HDR is the ratio of the highest and lowest value of the signal the display can produce. With a "dynamic" HDR there isn't a fixed ratio - it can be changed as conditions demand. There is repetition of a word, but without redundancy.
On the other hand, "LED diode" isn't wrong as such either; it's redundant, but redundancy itself often has a purpose: clarification. For example, if I mention an "ATM machine" you probably know that I'm talking about an automatic teller even if I was using that term in the middle of a conversation about network protocols.
That's not a counterargument - that's just changing the subject by bringing up an entirely different argument. The old extensions could stop working any time the browser updated. With WebExtensions extensions are not only much easier to make (in my experience), but they are future-compatible because they rely on defined APIs rather then just hooking into the browser's code du jour. So GP is correct: the move to webextensions is going to expand the ecosystem of maintained extensions, and that is "the lamest shit reason" to complain about FF 57 since in actual fact 57 fixes the problem you're complaining about.
A completely different issue is that now, instead of an extension being able to do anything that the browser could conceivably do, the functionality of an extension is limited to what APIs have been defined and implemented for WebExtensions. Many of the addons that worked for previous versions of Firefox don't work on Firefox 57 and can't be ported because there are no APIs. There are some addons that I'm not too keen on doing without, so instead of upgrading to 57 I personally am moving back to 52ESR until the extension functionality I want is possible.
Well, you could use "what I'm seeing is actually the edge of the disc" as your next hypothesis, and test it. From the hypothesis, it follows that there is no more ocean or land beyond that point. So all you need to do is travel there and see for yourself. Easiest if you pick a spot that's actually on land.
Alternatively, you could test the "what I'm seeing is the curvature of a sphere" hypothesis by repeating the weather balloon experiment from different locations and seeing if the "edge" remains constant or if it depends on where you're looking from.
Same problem, different name. AMD now uses what they call PSP, which is essentially their own version of IME.
As much as I'd like to support AMD adoption, they're unlikely to back off on PSP if everyone who dislikes IME switches to AMD without holding them to the same standard. If you want to see a change it might be better to loudly complain about IME while commenting that you would switch to AMD if only they didn't have the same problem. Maybe then AMD would eventually notice that they're missing out on a lot of potential customers. Maybe.
If AMD at least provided a mechanism for the actual owners to control the key used for TrustZone (along with maybe the source to a barebones firmware with all the trade secret magic stubbed out) then that would probably be enough.
From Mozilla.org: "Pocket strips away clutter and saves the page in a clean, distraction-free view". Why can't I have a clean distraction-free view without an account?
You don't need an account for that. I think you tripped over the fallacy of the inverse. The whole point of Pocket is to save the page so that you can view it on any other device that is connected to the same account. The quote you refer to says that an effect of Pocket is that the page gets saved in a de-cluttered form, but it doesn't say that Pocket is the only way to get that de-cluttered view, because it isn't - if you want a clean distraction-free view without an account then just press the "Enter Reader View" button on the URL bar. It's the icon that looks like an open book.
Oh come on, you should know that Star Wars cosplayers don't burn people at the stake. They throw them down a replica Sarlacc Pit.
Yes, and they also built their chips into a Playstation
I don't know how you've avoided it, it's not like it's optional unless you selected debit and used chip+pin.
How AC avoided having to give a signature? It's easy. Credit cards require PIN, not signature, unless you're in the US, and GP is not in the US.
from TFS: "They play just as crucial a role in pollinating ... [as honeybees]"
That's not what TFS says. "They" refers to wild bees in general (and arguably feral bees too), not specifically the bumblebees from the study - and they are being compared only to "managed colonies of honeybees" rather than honeybees in general.
How do they know what email address to send the phishing messages to? Is there a way to determine the author's email address from the Chrome store, or are they using information shared by the authors elsewhere?
Didn't we just have a (absolutely stupid) story about how password complexity rules are bad?
No, we didn't. We got a story about how one particular guide to making strong passwords wasn't good advice after all, according to the author. That advice guided people to making short passwords that included a capital, a lowercase letter, a digit and a special character, or variations thereof, and the author conceded that allowing long multi-word passwords is actually stronger than the short obfuscated ones that he recommended many years ago.
This story is that some sites allow you to give yourself a ridiculously weak password (for example, a single lowercase letter).
Both stories agree that password complexity rules are good.
I personally feel that browsers should consider blocking all external scripts on HTTPS pages unless those scripts have a matching integrity attribute, or at least make valid integrity for foreign scripts a requirement for avoiding the Mixed Content warning.
Urgh, sorry - I just expanded an abbreviated reply to Zero__Kelvin and see that it's you showing that you already know all that. Sorry for lecturing you on something you already understand.
No it doesn't. That section of RFC 2181 says that a DNS server isn't allowed to refuse to serve a zone because a DNS label in the zone isn't a valid hostname. It does not say that any valid DNS label is a valid hostname, and it does not say that a DNS client must resolve an invalid hostname. If fact, RFC 2181 doesn't define what is or is not a valid hostname at all - for that you should consult RFC 952 (with a small amendment in RFC 1123).
Basically, you are allowed to use whatever you want as a DNS label but if it contains anything other than letters, numbers and ASCII minus signs then it is not a hostname and you can't expect it to resolve as one (in fact, underscores are sometimes recommended as a means of preventing non-host labels from clashing with hostnames precisely because they are not valid hostnames). Netflix is the only one at fault in this particular instance because it was trying to name a host ipv6_1-cxl0-c088, which up until now has been working only by accident.
It's right there in the summary:
Although we maintain editorial control (for now)
They are limited in their control of the site, but adding pages (apparently with redirects) is still something they can do.
I hadn't heard of ProtonMail, but I just had a look and made an account for myself. Thank you for spreading the word - I'm very impressed so far. Pity about the 500 meg storage limit for free accounts - it's reasonable, but we're so spoilt by Google's "more than you will ever need" limit.
The question on whether the Doctor is capable of regenerating into a woman has been one of those little mysteries about the character that has gone on for decades. He was originally male and every single time he regenerated he came back as another man. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, war, 9, 10, meta-crisis (yes, it was sort of a cloning rather than a regular regeneration, but it still cost a life and was part Donna so it could have justifiably have gone either way), 11, 12 - that's 13 regenerations in a row, all men. It was confirmed in The Doctor's Wife it was confirmed that Time Lords can change sex when they regenerate, but at the same time it also confirmed that individual Time Lords can have a certain trait that persists through every regeneration, leaving open the possibility of the Doctor in particular being necessarily male. I suppose there's some appeal to having some long-standing mysteries about the Doctor, but in my opinion that one had more than enough of a run and needed to make way to allow the producers to pick whatever act(o)r(ess) they like best for the part.
I hope they have a bit of fun with the reveal, like the Doctor rushing to a mirror, staring wide-eyed at her reflection and saying something like: "I can't believe it. I'm... STILL not ginger? Come on!"
Getting a low UID is certainly one use for a TARDIS.
Thanks, good to know. I haven't actually tried that one myself. I was planning to give Let's Encrypt another shot with some of the other clients, and happened to be looking through the list just before this story hit.
I was put off Let's Encrypt too, also purely because the letsencrypt program makes a severe mess of the system. However, there are many other ACME clients, and even letsencrypt.org itself no longer recommends letsencrypt (it recommends certbot at the moment, and also has around 73 other suggested clients if certbot isn't what you want).
The word "artist" in the broader sense of this context refers to the one (or ones) who directly created the work of art in question. A piece of music is regarded as a work of art for this purpose, and in the specific context of a piece of music "the artist" usually refers to the performers, often by band name. But not every piece is a recording of a performance, so the word "artist" is used in place of a more awkward title, such as "performer or whatever term applies"