Debian Linux has been doing telemetry since, uh, well since I started using it, in 1999 or 2000. True, it's completely optional and it asks you during installation if you'd like to participate. But somehow, because you can optout easily, its ok that Linux does Telemetry. Talk about double standard.
Way to miss the point. That's not a double standard: "completely optional" and "asks you during installation if you'd like to participate," completely changes the situation. Firstly because you can easilly not participate if your want and secondly because they are not trying to force you to participate, you are more likely to trust that they don't want the information for dubious reasons.
No. Pulldown is how TV networks that have chosen to broadcast in 1080i60 broadcast 1080p24 content. It's the only method available to them.
Assuming you are correct, how does the TV know the content was originally 1080p24? If you do inverse telecine on stuff which was originally recorded live interlaced you won't get very good results.
On the other hand, the quality of the people developing the kernel seems to be higher than those developing systemd, or at least that is the perception I get from reading all the hate on the Internet.
Not really 40 years that would be about edition 5 and the Bourne shell was not even invented yet. The SysV init, especially the link farm aspect, is quite different to edition 7 init or even BSD 4.3 init. Once/etc/rc was pretty much a hand crafted script with some boiler plate. Even now, although the link farm to/etc/init.d/ is common to SysV derived unix variants, distros tend to have different library functions for starting/stopping deamons etc, so service scripts are not really portable. And how you maintain the link farm (ie enable or disable a service) varies. chkconfig is an import from IRIX and not universal. The way (if any) of specifying which services by default run at which runlevel and what their priority and is by no means standardised.
inetd used to be configured by a single file not a collection of files in/etc/xinetd.d. A sysadmin from BSD 4.2/3 experience say 30 years ago, wouldn't even think to look in/etc/xinetd.d if rsh didn't work and if the users complain that ssh didn't work, well that didn't get invented until more like 20 years ago.
I venture to suggest that if you took a unix sysadmin from 40 years ago forward in a time machine they would be pretty much at sea configuring any
modern linux and I don't think their learning curve would be any steeper for systemd based init than sysV based init. They would not be familiar with xinetd, they would not even be familiar with inetd. If your mail isn't getting, and they were from 35 years ago they might waste some time work out where the uucp configuration had gone.
And this is just the start. A LOT has changed in 40 years. Think of typical sysadmin tasks such as installing software and configuring printers, GUIs, networks, firewalls and httpd. And what is this "grub" and how can I reboot without console toggle switches and how do I change a disk pack? FWIW I no doubt count as a "greybeard", and I personally regard the SysV way of doing things as a wrong turn, but I am still not too old to learn systemd. I found the documentation adequate (or even good by linux standards).
That's never been the case. Init was a binary executable (to say nothing of the kernel).
You can still boot with init=/bin/sh which is about as basic as it gets.
Why can't you measure it? It's true that standard methods for bulk materials - pendulums and standard shape test samples can't be used, but that just means a new test procedure.
Toughness is the energy required to break the thread, tensile strength is the force to break it. Toughness is the area under the stress/strain curve up to failure (or perhaps up to the yield point).
In anycase the GP is slightly misleading. Toughness is not an exotic kind of strength.
Surely this is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. A laser is essentially a resonant cavity of two mirrors with an active medium between them. The mirrors in the laser have tougher constraints than the on protecting the target.
Also the light which is not reflected is not necessarilly absorbed. If the reflective layer is on a transparent backing, then most of the light which is not reflected is transmitted rather than absorbed. I'd try silvered glass, with an air gap behind it and then an ablative layer.
I don't know what is worse. The fact that they don't understand intelligence testing or that they think that unless there is a center for it in the brain, then it doesn't exist.
Modern IQ tests consist of multiple sub tests - 15 for the WAIS IV. General intelligence "g" or a combines score is a weighted sum of the abilites in all these sub tests. A competent psychologist will look at the sub test scores for a richer interpretation, but that doesn't mean that the combined score is useless. General intelligence is based on the observation that people who are smart in one area tend to be smart in other areas (unfair though this may seem). Of course, this isn't always the case and sometimes people who are smart in one are are not smart in other areas. It is more accurate to think of modern IQ tests as a combined measure than as a single measure.
Think of it like CPUs. A combined benchmark like specmark or passmark can not fully characterise CPU performance, and sure, if I want a precise comparison, I need to define exactly what my load will be, yet you will be hard pressed to find a work load which a Pentium 3 performs better than an I7. So it IS useful to have aggregate measures of performance - so long as they are no over interpreted.
Some people don't like IQ tests because they see them as discriminating against socially disadvantaged groups, or racial groups. It is true that there is an issue of cultural bias in IQ tests, which people try an eliminate but can never do so completely. However, used properly, IQ tests can actually help people from disadvantaged backgrounds by identifying those with academic ability which may not be manifesting itself as academic performance for other reasons.
old school AC transformer units have miserable efficiency and are both heavy and bulky.
I'm not quite sure what qualifies as "old school" but AC transformers even at 50/60 Hz can be quite efficient though I grant you, they are heavy and bulky.
Apart from size and mass the big advantage of switch mod power supplies is that they can be regulated with no appreciable loss in efficiency. The alternative is pretty much a linear regulator and that combination (of transformer and linear regulator) tends to have miserable efficiency.
It's like virtual particles. Particle (cash) and anti particle (debt) pairs can spontaneously pop into existence. So all we need is a black hole to swallow the debt and cash is the equivalent of Hawking radiation apparently emitted by a black hole. I surmise that the worlds current financial problems are due to the black hole(s) finally evaporating.
But it should. There are two principles. One is that if the copyright owner is refusing to sell someone a copy, then they are not losing anything by that person making a copy. The second is that distribution agreements are restraint of trade.
Interesting, but I don't quite buy this as a definition of religion or as a restriction on the scope of science. The study of how things should be seems to me like moral philosophy. Religion generally (always?) includes some belief in the supernatural. I would argue that claims that a system of moral philosophy are divinely inspired is actually an impediment to greater moral understanding.
Also, science can have something to say about morality by conducting experiments on how people behave when faced with moral dilemmas. True this doesn't tell you how things "should" (in an absolute sense) be, but it does tell you something about what it is to be human. A female spider eats the male after mating. This is unacceptable for humans. No one criticises the spider. What is moral for a spider is not moral for a human. Ergo, what it moral for a human is in the nature of humans and the nature of humans is discoverable by science.
There is again a BIG difference you seem to be missing,either you simply don't see it or are trolling, can't be sure. you see if a proprietary software house ignores the users? Well then they lose money and sometimes a LOT of money, and that tends to put the fire under one's ass!
That is pretty much the "product which makes the company money, and a lot of customers experience the bug, and it is serious" case I mentioned. So yes, I do see.
The developer has moved on and nobody wants to fix the shitter so after FOUR versions it STILL hasn't been fixed!
Actually I do agree that is probably the case and I never said I didn't. What I don't agree with is your claim that this one anecdote somehow proves the general case and your dismissal of the one study cited as being less relevant than your opinions on human nature.
What you've missed is that the developers of proprietary software move on too (sometime the individuals, sometimes the whole company). Generally the customer does not pay the developers. The developers company pays the developers, and they will only pay them to fix your bug if there is nothing of higher value to the company for them to do. Yes, if it is product which makes the company money, and a lot of customers experience the bug, and it is serious, then it will probably get fixed. Otherwise maybe not. The way bugs get "chosen" to be fixed for FOSS software is different, but it is not clear in general whether it results in more buggy code. Unfortunately, "common sense" about these things is often wrong, which is why people do studies and try and get objective data.
Fixing FOSS yourself is an option, so is paying someone else to fix it and so is complaining, waiting and hoping. Granted, these approaches all have problems: requiring skills and application; requiring deep pockets; or are unlikely to be successful. With proprietary software, you are pretty much restricted to "complaining, waiting and hoping". You might hope that your complaining will have more effect, but that is really only true if you are a big customer or there are lots like you.
When I was young I proudly identified a bug in a proprietary compiler. The company I worked for hadn't bought the support contract. I naively thought that the vendor would want to know that their compiler had a bug (with a nice test case) but they wouldn't even take the bug report without a support contract, let alone fix it!
China's growth rate can't continue forever. But, China only needs a per capita GDP of 1/4 of the US GDP per capita to be "the worlds largest economy". There is a strong possibility (but of course no guarantee) that they will continue to have rapid growth until at least that point.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for Ireland, but lots of countries have "sovereign wealth" funds. Opinion clearly differs on what is a "proper" function of government.
Debian Linux has been doing telemetry since, uh, well since I started using it, in 1999 or 2000. True, it's completely optional and it asks you during installation if you'd like to participate. But somehow, because you can optout easily, its ok that Linux does Telemetry. Talk about double standard.
Way to miss the point. That's not a double standard: "completely optional" and "asks you during installation if you'd like to participate," completely changes the situation. Firstly because you can easilly not participate if your want and secondly because they are not trying to force you to participate, you are more likely to trust that they don't want the information for dubious reasons.
No. Pulldown is how TV networks that have chosen to broadcast in 1080i60 broadcast 1080p24 content. It's the only method available to them.
Assuming you are correct, how does the TV know the content was originally 1080p24? If you do inverse telecine on stuff which was originally recorded live interlaced you won't get very good results.
TP-Link make some of the most cost effective, well supported hardware. For OpenWRT.
Its been a while, but in the Fortran I recall, mismatching number (and type) of function/subroutine arguments was a fruitful source of errors.
On the other hand, the quality of the people developing the kernel seems to be higher than those developing systemd, or at least that is the perception I get from reading all the hate on the Internet.
Hint: That is not a reliable indicator.
Not really 40 years that would be about edition 5 and the Bourne shell was not even invented yet. The SysV init, especially the link farm aspect, is quite different to edition 7 init or even BSD 4.3 init. Once /etc/rc was pretty much a hand crafted script with some boiler plate. Even now, although the link farm to /etc/init.d/ is common to SysV derived unix variants, distros tend to have different library functions for starting/stopping deamons etc, so service scripts are not really portable. And how you maintain the link farm (ie enable or disable a service) varies. chkconfig is an import from IRIX and not universal. The way (if any) of specifying which services by default run at which runlevel and what their priority and is by no means standardised.
inetd used to be configured by a single file not a collection of files in /etc/xinetd.d. A sysadmin from BSD 4.2/3 experience say 30 years ago, wouldn't even think to look in /etc/xinetd.d if rsh didn't work and if the users complain that ssh didn't work, well that didn't get invented until more like 20 years ago.
I venture to suggest that if you took a unix sysadmin from 40 years ago forward in a time machine they would be pretty much at sea configuring any modern linux and I don't think their learning curve would be any steeper for systemd based init than sysV based init. They would not be familiar with xinetd, they would not even be familiar with inetd. If your mail isn't getting, and they were from 35 years ago they might waste some time work out where the uucp configuration had gone. And this is just the start. A LOT has changed in 40 years. Think of typical sysadmin tasks such as installing software and configuring printers, GUIs, networks, firewalls and httpd. And what is this "grub" and how can I reboot without console toggle switches and how do I change a disk pack? FWIW I no doubt count as a "greybeard", and I personally regard the SysV way of doing things as a wrong turn, but I am still not too old to learn systemd. I found the documentation adequate (or even good by linux standards).
That's never been the case. Init was a binary executable (to say nothing of the kernel). You can still boot with init=/bin/sh which is about as basic as it gets.
Um ... relative to 0dB ...
Why can't you measure it? It's true that standard methods for bulk materials - pendulums and standard shape test samples can't be used, but that just means a new test procedure. Toughness is the energy required to break the thread, tensile strength is the force to break it. Toughness is the area under the stress/strain curve up to failure (or perhaps up to the yield point). In anycase the GP is slightly misleading. Toughness is not an exotic kind of strength.
Surely this is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. A laser is essentially a resonant cavity of two mirrors with an active medium between them. The mirrors in the laser have tougher constraints than the on protecting the target. Also the light which is not reflected is not necessarilly absorbed. If the reflective layer is on a transparent backing, then most of the light which is not reflected is transmitted rather than absorbed. I'd try silvered glass, with an air gap behind it and then an ablative layer.
You lost me at "root of all evil."
I don't know what is worse. The fact that they don't understand intelligence testing or that they think that unless there is a center for it in the brain, then it doesn't exist.
Modern IQ tests consist of multiple sub tests - 15 for the WAIS IV. General intelligence "g" or a combines score is a weighted sum of the abilites in all these sub tests. A competent psychologist will look at the sub test scores for a richer interpretation, but that doesn't mean that the combined score is useless. General intelligence is based on the observation that people who are smart in one area tend to be smart in other areas (unfair though this may seem). Of course, this isn't always the case and sometimes people who are smart in one are are not smart in other areas. It is more accurate to think of modern IQ tests as a combined measure than as a single measure.
Think of it like CPUs. A combined benchmark like specmark or passmark can not fully characterise CPU performance, and sure, if I want a precise comparison, I need to define exactly what my load will be, yet you will be hard pressed to find a work load which a Pentium 3 performs better than an I7. So it IS useful to have aggregate measures of performance - so long as they are no over interpreted.
Some people don't like IQ tests because they see them as discriminating against socially disadvantaged groups, or racial groups. It is true that there is an issue of cultural bias in IQ tests, which people try an eliminate but can never do so completely. However, used properly, IQ tests can actually help people from disadvantaged backgrounds by identifying those with academic ability which may not be manifesting itself as academic performance for other reasons.
Accidental moderation.
For a 3 yr old, GCompris is hard to beat.
old school AC transformer units have miserable efficiency and are both heavy and bulky.
I'm not quite sure what qualifies as "old school" but AC transformers even at 50/60 Hz can be quite efficient though I grant you, they are heavy and bulky.
Apart from size and mass the big advantage of switch mod power supplies is that they can be regulated with no appreciable loss in efficiency. The alternative is pretty much a linear regulator and that combination (of transformer and linear regulator) tends to have miserable efficiency.
So you would say it is OK for a hotel owner to refuse service to blacks?
It's like virtual particles. Particle (cash) and anti particle (debt) pairs can spontaneously pop into existence. So all we need is a black hole to swallow the debt and cash is the equivalent of Hawking radiation apparently emitted by a black hole. I surmise that the worlds current financial problems are due to the black hole(s) finally evaporating.
Unmoderating.
Copyright does not require reasonability. [...].
But it should. There are two principles. One is that if the copyright owner is refusing to sell someone a copy, then they are not losing anything by that person making a copy. The second is that distribution agreements are restraint of trade.
Interesting, but I don't quite buy this as a definition of religion or as a restriction on the scope of science. The study of how things should be seems to me like moral philosophy. Religion generally (always?) includes some belief in the supernatural. I would argue that claims that a system of moral philosophy are divinely inspired is actually an impediment to greater moral understanding.
Also, science can have something to say about morality by conducting experiments on how people behave when faced with moral dilemmas. True this doesn't tell you how things "should" (in an absolute sense) be, but it does tell you something about what it is to be human. A female spider eats the male after mating. This is unacceptable for humans. No one criticises the spider. What is moral for a spider is not moral for a human. Ergo, what it moral for a human is in the nature of humans and the nature of humans is discoverable by science.
There is again a BIG difference you seem to be missing,either you simply don't see it or are trolling, can't be sure. you see if a proprietary software house ignores the users? Well then they lose money and sometimes a LOT of money, and that tends to put the fire under one's ass!
That is pretty much the "product which makes the company money, and a lot of customers experience the bug, and it is serious" case I mentioned. So yes, I do see.
The developer has moved on and nobody wants to fix the shitter so after FOUR versions it STILL hasn't been fixed!
Actually I do agree that is probably the case and I never said I didn't. What I don't agree with is your claim that this one anecdote somehow proves the general case and your dismissal of the one study cited as being less relevant than your opinions on human nature.
What you've missed is that the developers of proprietary software move on too (sometime the individuals, sometimes the whole company). Generally the customer does not pay the developers. The developers company pays the developers, and they will only pay them to fix your bug if there is nothing of higher value to the company for them to do. Yes, if it is product which makes the company money, and a lot of customers experience the bug, and it is serious, then it will probably get fixed. Otherwise maybe not. The way bugs get "chosen" to be fixed for FOSS software is different, but it is not clear in general whether it results in more buggy code. Unfortunately, "common sense" about these things is often wrong, which is why people do studies and try and get objective data.
Fixing FOSS yourself is an option, so is paying someone else to fix it and so is complaining, waiting and hoping. Granted, these approaches all have problems: requiring skills and application; requiring deep pockets; or are unlikely to be successful. With proprietary software, you are pretty much restricted to "complaining, waiting and hoping". You might hope that your complaining will have more effect, but that is really only true if you are a big customer or there are lots like you.
When I was young I proudly identified a bug in a proprietary compiler. The company I worked for hadn't bought the support contract. I naively thought that the vendor would want to know that their compiler had a bug (with a nice test case) but they wouldn't even take the bug report without a support contract, let alone fix it!
China's growth rate can't continue forever. But, China only needs a per capita GDP of 1/4 of the US GDP per capita to be "the worlds largest economy". There is a strong possibility (but of course no guarantee) that they will continue to have rapid growth until at least that point.
Prob'ly its hard to bring down a dam with a pocket knife.