Indifferent is not the right word, but they're looking to see if there's a reasonable chance whether an investigation could result in a conviction and that's far from just rapes. I've had my car vandalized at night, no witnesses and really just reported it for the insurance claim. I've had a pair of brand new shoes stolen at the gym, no cameras pointing in that direction, I just reported it for the statistics so they know how much crime is really going on.
They come into the police station thinking now I'm going to get him caught and punished, but what they often end up hearing is essentially "So you were raped and from what you're telling me he's going to get away with it" and that really hurts. The standard of evidence often feels unreasonable, like what do you expect a written confession or a video recording? That's the flip side to the justice system, if you know you've been the victim of a crime but the perpetrator gets away with it the illusion that the law will protect you shatters.
Which is not to say that the gun nuts are right, it wouldn't have stopped my car from being vandalized or my shoes stolen and if she wasn't in any condition to put up a fight she wouldn't have been able to get hold of and fire a gun either. What you're really experiencing is that bad men will be able to do bad things to you and there's really no sane way of making 100% sure it doesn't. The justice system makes a difference, but it won't make things right and fair. And I'm pretty sure heaven and hell is a fairy tale for adults.
Indeed and their goal with Linux is to have a gaming platform independent of Apple and Microsoft, from their perspective you have a choice of nVidia (closed), AMD (open and closed) and Intel (open) covering all the bases. I don't think Valve feels the need for more choice for Linux to be a choice.
But why? It seems counter to business interests. The more people using your hardware, the better, yes?
A common misconception, with complex products there's always so many environments and conditions you never get all the corner cases worked out. So what you want is ten million people playing GTA V on Windows (7/8/Vista), not all these niche users finding subtle ways to break it on their special snowflake of a Linux setup. It costs time and money, hurts your brand and most companies would rather just sell to the 95%+ doing mainstream tasks.
Complete loss of human knowledge is also a common trope in post-apocalyptic fiction, but I think that too would be unlikely. I doubt something is going to completely fry every single circuit and book. The entire content of wikipedia fits on a thumb drive. I've got one. And while no, wikipedia itself is not the same thing as having every technical journal, you can get a pretty good idea of the concepts that drive our technological society from it. Not having to re-derive Maxwell's equations is a huge leg up.
And how long will it last? WWII lasted six years and after the war there was rationing on everything, I imagine an apocalypse like that only bigger and worse. Power will have been out for years, generators don't have fuel and people will be too busy doing what the illiterate masses has done for most of human history, surviving. There won't be any replacement parts so when your machine fails it's dead, assuming you got clean power to begin with. And they need something useful at their current level of technology.
I don't think you understand how much of a downward spiral we'll have simply because the infrastructure and division of labor is collapsing. I'd probably be out in the fields trying to make food and firewood for the winter and sorry but if I had kids that's the kind of thing that'd be my first priority for them too. Learning what I know about computers wouldn't even rate as nice-to-have because it'd be bloody unlikely they'd see a transistor made after the apocalypse anyway. Life span would probably drop to what they were 2000 years ago because there's no industrial production of hygiene, sanitation or medical products. And when I'm dead and the computer's dead, yes maybe there's some books on a shelf... but it's a long, long way to recovery.
"Trolling" meant "fishing." (...) Today they think "troll" is referring to monsters who live under bridges.
How many years is it since you first heard "Don't feed the troll", which clearly refers to it as the monster and not the fishing technique? Certainly before the dotcom days, in my case. I think you've fallen into the trap of defining the finer art of trolling as the only true trolling, when the ones posting goat.cx links were trolling for newbies just like you. Or taunting the guy with a short temper. Or tricking the veteran into writing a long, insightful reply just to realize he was wasting his time on a troll.
Baiting, flaming, pranking, bullying, flamebaiting, pretty much any way of subtly or not subtly at all trying to disrupt a discussion and have people go off on wild rants and off-topic discussions and flamefests and whatnot has been known as trolling for a very long time. Sure the elaborate trap to lure the wary was one part of it, but there were always those looking for the cheap lulz. And if you can't win by trolling, you can always accuse someone else of being a troll. And if you can't find anyone to take the bait, be the clueless n00b too so you can get everyone to shout at you to stop feeding the troll.
Parent poster here, I tried to convince the my manager and sales department to give support on a time basis based (X years after delivery date), but the "that is not how other companies bigger than ours do it" argument won over mine. So as a result we update our versions based around the time we think we supported the old versions long enough.
I think a combination works best, major releases makes most sense when it comes to technology/code you must support while a minimum number of years makes sure you won't go Firefox and suddenly be at version 40. For all the other bashing Microsoft can take, their policy is actually a good model:
Mainstream Support for Business, Developer, and Desktop Operating Systems will be provided for 5 years or for 2 years after the successor product (N+1) is released, whichever is longer. Microsoft will also provide Extended Support for the 5 years following Mainstream support or for 2 years after the second successor product (N+2) is released, whichever is longer.
Basically you get a guaranteed 10 years of support from release, 7 years as long as you're buying the latest version (minimum 2+5) and if it takes longer the support period stretches too. Don't expect another XP though, Vista runs from January 2007 to April 2017, Win7 from October 2009 to January 2020 both 10 years, 3 months. And with Win10 seemingly on schedule for release this year it'll be the same with Win8.
This gets me thinking about what the most reliable data media would be to keep in my fire-rated home safe. CDs/DVDs/tapes could easily melt or warp rendering them useless
Ordinary fireproof safes are designed to keep papers from bursting into flames. Data rated fireproof safes keep the interior temperature under 125F/50C, like say this one so computer media survives just fine. In fact, this a "Why can't I be arsed to google this for five minutes?" question.
Until they pass a law demanding that all encryption software must be able to comply with lawful warrants to decrypt the contents and outlaws the rest, making it a crime by iteself. Or just create some procedural rules to keep you in contempt of court until you decrypt it. You really think they're going to clamp down on all proprietary software and totally ignore open source just like that? I admire your optimism but if they can make this happen open source encryption will be on death row.
Cosmologists hotly debate a lot of the details, but their agreement on the fundamentals is near-unanimous.
Those who want to believe otherwise rarely let that get in their way, that we're still working out the minute details of complex interactions is an easy way to dismiss everything. See evolution, the climate, medicine, nutrition, ecosystems, pollution, almost everything that doesn't reduce down to a physics/chemistry experiment really.
It's the best tool for the job if you want to run a Windows network? Seriously, it's not like you decide management tools and let your platform/applications revolve around that. This is the step after you've convinced everyone to give up Outlook/Exchange and Word, accounting to give up Excel, PHBs to give up Powerpoint, design/marketing to give up Photoshop and every other bit of Windows-only software they got and your server admins ask "So what's our replacement for AD?" and they're going to ask you if it has features X, Y and Z just like the others did.
My guess is that every argument you just said will be met with a shrug and "It seems to work just fine for us, don't know what you're talking about. So how do we push a group policy to all clients in Linux?" and if your best answer is to write a script to ssh into each box and patch a configuration file they'll just roll their eyes and say "Linux does not have the necessary management features we need" and you've got one more group added to the list of migration opponents. Contrary to the *nix philosophy, I've yet to meet anyone happy to replace one tool with five, even if each is arguably a bit better. Swiss army knifes works quite well in the real world.
On the other hand, not an inch has been driven without a licensed driver behind the wheel. Until and unless it drives itself it's only a glorified cruise control, because it doesn't free you up to do anything else, it doesn't allow for self-driving cars and it doesn't lets minors, the intoxicated or anyone else impaired to use the car. It doesn't matter if it can drive 99% of the roads 99% of the time if we still need that human there for the 1% when something weird happens. And unlike industrial robots in controlled environment, there are going to be weird things happening.
You can look at the resistance when it comes to pilot-less planes, which should be a lot easier. They have autopilots, they have instrument landing systems and in theory they don't need pilots but in practice they all have them anyway. I suspect the same will happen with cars, in theory we don't need drivers but it'll take a really long while until it happens in practice. And that doesn't include any major setbacks like a critical bug causing a spectacular pile-up or mowing down a pedestrian. It only needs to happen once to set self-driving cars back 10 years or more.
Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.
About 2000 years ago, we mostly kept the peace for over 200 years. And you're measuring the casualties after the deadliest war in human history, particularly when you consider #2 and #3 being ~100 years long and WWII six so it's no wonder normal years look good. And when you consider the global thermonuclear war that almost happened in 1962, I think you're cherry picking data. I think perhaps it's safe to say we've swapped frequency with severity, because I don't think there's any doubt that a potential WWIII will dwarf WWII's casualties, possibly on day one.
Of course you might say that's not going to happen. That's what they said before WWI. That's what they said before WWII. That's what they'll say before WWIII. Don't forget that with alliances and pacts and whatnot one small dispute can start dragging more and more states into the conflict like dominoes falling. People around here stare at their local geopolitical bubble and don't realize that the same alliance that protects us is also likely to drag us into conflicts far far away to aid them, the way we expect them to aid us. It's like we don't want to acknowledge that part of the equation.
If you were the compliance officer, where would you put the transactional data from your bank?
On a WORM tape, that's the only right answer to this particular question.
If your data is worth keeping. LTO is the way to go. Three copies, on 3 different tapes, in each of three different states.
For ordinary backup of systems I'd consider just having enough copies on HDDs, because it tends to be fairly obvious when they fail. If the system is reasonably intelligent I should be able to plug in any drive and it'll seamlessly add it to the backup cloud downloading what it needs from other nodes, I'm not sure it's the most cost effective way but it's not really the price/TB that drives backup costs, often it's a total disaster to lose 10GB of important business documents, source code etc.
Manually swapping tapes without a tape robot is a massive pain and prone to human failure. If you have a single tape robot in a single location, that's a huge single point of failure. And if you have a redundant array of very expensive tape robots, well you're in the 0,1% of businesses I know. You'll find many companies with <100 employees total with maybe 50 at a main office and 10-20 at a couple branch offices. You can make a good geographically redundant backup system from that, as long as we're not talking huge (but important!) amounts of data.
And you know this how? Isn't this the concept of "pre-crime" (...) So we should prosecute "thought crime" should we?
It's not a thought crime if you have the intent to go through with it when you have the means and opportunity. If you write stories about kidnapping a kid or roleplay it with your adult girlfriend, that's fantasy and a thought crime. If someone provides you with ether, a getaway van with stolen plates and point out a secluded place where a kid likes to play alone late at night and you get caught trying to actually kidnap a child that's no longer a thought crime. Which is why we catch them in the act or reasonably close to, not where they might have any "alternate future" in which they don't go through with it.
Making it appear like the risk/reward ratio is in your favor is not entrapment. Maybe you wouldn't have taken the time and effort or found the courage to find/learn/make/use those means and opportunities yourself, but it's still not thought crime. It's more like real, unreleased criminal potential where they're testing your answer to "If you knew you could get away with it, would you....?" which is an entirely different question than "Do you ever dream of....?" because one implies a desire to carry it out in the real world and the other one doesn't. That's a rather important distinction.
Two sides of the same coin, isn't it? The government wants data about foreigners, from a foreign place. They want, in short, to spy. Their chosen method of attack is to pressure people in the USA who happen to have access to that data, as opposed to e.g. placing a mole inside a foreign organisation, but the tactic used does not change the goal of the mission.
Replace USA and Ireland with China and USA respectively and ask yourself if you think it's okay for the Chinese government to subpoena a Chinese company to provide data from a US subsidiary about US citizens, stored in the US. My guess is that most Americans would strongly object to their data being handed over to foreign governments that way, particularly without the US legal system getting a say. In particular, to a court not bound by the 4th amendment or any other protection that data might have had under US law. So it's one rule for us, one rule for everybody else.
It's like the US government hasn't backed down an inch since the Snowden revelations and is still in "all your data are belongs to us" mode. Then again people continue to use GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo, Facebook and all these other US services that'll jump when the US government yanks their chain so I guess people don't care enough. It's obviously to anyone that cares that any relation to the US is the touch of death when it comes to privacy.
Texting and it's roots in IRC talk like LOL, BRB and emoticons has greatly influenced informal communication, but if want to write a paper formal English hasn't changed nearly as much and that's without a governing body. My native language has been formally regulated for 100+ years, meaning there's a formal guide to what words and grammar are "correct" and that schools formally and universities, public institutions and many other informally defer to as correct Norwegian. It has been revised three times since WWII (1959, 1981, 2005) though the revisions of course incorporate and adapt to how people use it I still think it's fairly possible to have strong control over an artificial language.
What will kill any "simple" universal language is the verbosity, we say "I'm in" instead of "I agree to your proposal" even though it is grammatically gibberish, in what? And "I am" describes a state you're in, not a change of state like making a decision but it's effective assuming your counterpart also understands you. I believe some have worked on such a form of "intermediate language" as the basis of universal translators where everything is rigorously defined and only the mappings to human languages are ambiguous, but it's not a language anyone would speak.
And what we need changes over time, 150 years ago nobody knew a "car" so if we optimized for the 1800s there'd be nothing shorter than automobile free. Other words go out of need, when did you last use a quill? Today we'd happily relinquish it to be called a featherpen and leave the shorter word for something useful. Or the way people in Africa don't need many words for snow and ice, which obviously take up short combos in English. Which is also why we "steal" words like gay or tweet, that used to have entirely different meanings - it's not like homosexual has ceased to exist but it's way too many syllables for everyday use.
That's also why we need different layers of terminology, a doctor might talk to a three year old about how his tummy hurts, he might talk to you about how you have an ulcer and he might talk to another doctor about a venticular inflammation of the gasteroperiax interor or some other semi-Latin gibberish. We have different needs and a universal language often acts like there's one way we could speak to each other when that's clearly not the case no matter what language we speak in now. And it's probably more important that the doctors are able to quickly and exactly pass information between them than whether it's understandable for everyone else. Same with game developers talking about voxels and tesselation and so on, after all we are mostly not talking to people totally ignorant of the subject and we adapt.
You on the other hand are a wanker that thinks normal people - who are not anywhere near wealthy enough to defend themselves against the full might of a TREASON charge
Not even Snowden is going to be charged with that:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Of course they have a fair selection of others if they want to "throw the book" at you, unless you end up at Gitmo for waterboarding instead. But you get that one fig leaf to cover behind at least.
Not really, the doctrine of latches has two catches: 1. It involves an unreasonable delay in filing a lawsuit, not in discovering infringement. If you hear a 50 year old song on the radio and go "Hey... my dad wrote that 51 years ago" you can sue today, unless there's a statue of limitations. On the other hand if it was because of the band breaking up and you disagree with the way the copyrights were divided, the doctrine of latches would apply because your dad should have filed suit 50 years ago. It might apply if you were on a standards board and didn't disclose relevant patents that went into the standard, but there's no law against sticking your head in the sand for a few years before discovering your patent is being infringed. And the patent act will normally grant you six years of back pay for past infringement, which overrides general doctrines.
2. The other big limitation is that it only applies to damages from before the filing of the lawsuit, it will never negate the patent as a whole. So even if you're barred from recovering damages from earlier, which would be chump change anyway, from the moment it's filed the meter is running. And you could still be hit with an injunction to stop using the patented invention, basically it doesn't do anything to lessen the damage after you're caught with your foot in the bear trap. So the doctrine is really, really gimped when it comes to patents, it'll rarely if ever do you any good.
Actually the last machine I had with a turbo button was the DX4-100, if you turned off the turbo it ran at 66 MHz I think. It was totally pointless, no software assumed it ran at that speed. If they still had an XT/AT compatibility button that would actually have been useful, as it were I think it was just for marketing because people expected a "turbo" mode.
I guess you want to read it your way, what I read is that without the initial unrelated sensor glitch - which had corrected itself by then - the flight computer would have said "We're stalling and you want to pull up? I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that." But because the computer diagnosed itself as possibly going nuts and handed over control to these highly trained pilots who should know what to do, those morons acted like one of Pavlov's dogs at the sound of the stall warning. I'm sorry that the flight computer couldn't make a trained monkey land the plane, maybe next time try without the monkey?
Of course, the primary problem is no one can hardware accelerate VP9 right now, so it's all CPU decoded. (h.265 decoders are *just* starting to emerge). So 720p decoding in CPU is probably achievable, but 1080p or 4K... not so much.
For H.264, multithreading was an afterthought, I know HEVC has wavefront parallel processing that you can find a good illustration of here:
My guess is that Google lawyers didn't screw anything up, and Google would eventually win the court battle; but perhaps the FUD caused by a lawsuit would make the hardware manufacturers pass on VP9.
I don't think even Google's lawyers could with certainty say they don't violate any obscure video patent somewhere. The GIF standard was torpedoed by a single patent, I'd be most surprised if there wasn't at least one shark in the water with a patent that VP9 violates, just waiting for it to get popular and to sue in East Texas for billions rather than play MPEG LAs game. Why be one of hundreds of sharks getting a nibble of the H.264 patents when you can be the one raking in all the VP9 patent royalties with a cut from every Android device sold?
You don't need to be an evil mastermind to come up with that plan, just your average corporate scum which is why Google doesn't really want to commit. They want to use the VPx codecs to force reasonable H.264/H.265 license terms, but much like people waving around the threat to migrate to Linux they don't really want to jump into the unknown waters unless they have to. Is it FUD? Well, that depends on whether you believe there's a real chance of shark attack or not. Not every warning of danger is FUD.
They probably also have plans for what to do if we're invaded by Canada. Not because it is likely, but because a nation this large can afford to plan for unlikely things. Some of those unlikely things will actually happen.
From what I gather that's mostly for training purposes because they don't want to hand out their actual plans and intelligence against real geopolitical enemies beyond a very limited circle and it's a lot more politically accepted. What they really care about is planning the movement of troops, tanks, ships, planes, formations, supply lines, support columns and so on. It's not like they're all that different from the military's point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
Indifferent is not the right word, but they're looking to see if there's a reasonable chance whether an investigation could result in a conviction and that's far from just rapes. I've had my car vandalized at night, no witnesses and really just reported it for the insurance claim. I've had a pair of brand new shoes stolen at the gym, no cameras pointing in that direction, I just reported it for the statistics so they know how much crime is really going on.
They come into the police station thinking now I'm going to get him caught and punished, but what they often end up hearing is essentially "So you were raped and from what you're telling me he's going to get away with it" and that really hurts. The standard of evidence often feels unreasonable, like what do you expect a written confession or a video recording? That's the flip side to the justice system, if you know you've been the victim of a crime but the perpetrator gets away with it the illusion that the law will protect you shatters.
Which is not to say that the gun nuts are right, it wouldn't have stopped my car from being vandalized or my shoes stolen and if she wasn't in any condition to put up a fight she wouldn't have been able to get hold of and fire a gun either. What you're really experiencing is that bad men will be able to do bad things to you and there's really no sane way of making 100% sure it doesn't. The justice system makes a difference, but it won't make things right and fair. And I'm pretty sure heaven and hell is a fairy tale for adults.
Their goal is to sell games.
Indeed and their goal with Linux is to have a gaming platform independent of Apple and Microsoft, from their perspective you have a choice of nVidia (closed), AMD (open and closed) and Intel (open) covering all the bases. I don't think Valve feels the need for more choice for Linux to be a choice.
But why? It seems counter to business interests. The more people using your hardware, the better, yes?
A common misconception, with complex products there's always so many environments and conditions you never get all the corner cases worked out. So what you want is ten million people playing GTA V on Windows (7/8/Vista), not all these niche users finding subtle ways to break it on their special snowflake of a Linux setup. It costs time and money, hurts your brand and most companies would rather just sell to the 95%+ doing mainstream tasks.
Complete loss of human knowledge is also a common trope in post-apocalyptic fiction, but I think that too would be unlikely. I doubt something is going to completely fry every single circuit and book. The entire content of wikipedia fits on a thumb drive. I've got one. And while no, wikipedia itself is not the same thing as having every technical journal, you can get a pretty good idea of the concepts that drive our technological society from it. Not having to re-derive Maxwell's equations is a huge leg up.
And how long will it last? WWII lasted six years and after the war there was rationing on everything, I imagine an apocalypse like that only bigger and worse. Power will have been out for years, generators don't have fuel and people will be too busy doing what the illiterate masses has done for most of human history, surviving. There won't be any replacement parts so when your machine fails it's dead, assuming you got clean power to begin with. And they need something useful at their current level of technology.
I don't think you understand how much of a downward spiral we'll have simply because the infrastructure and division of labor is collapsing. I'd probably be out in the fields trying to make food and firewood for the winter and sorry but if I had kids that's the kind of thing that'd be my first priority for them too. Learning what I know about computers wouldn't even rate as nice-to-have because it'd be bloody unlikely they'd see a transistor made after the apocalypse anyway. Life span would probably drop to what they were 2000 years ago because there's no industrial production of hygiene, sanitation or medical products. And when I'm dead and the computer's dead, yes maybe there's some books on a shelf... but it's a long, long way to recovery.
"Trolling" meant "fishing." (...) Today they think "troll" is referring to monsters who live under bridges.
How many years is it since you first heard "Don't feed the troll", which clearly refers to it as the monster and not the fishing technique? Certainly before the dotcom days, in my case. I think you've fallen into the trap of defining the finer art of trolling as the only true trolling, when the ones posting goat.cx links were trolling for newbies just like you. Or taunting the guy with a short temper. Or tricking the veteran into writing a long, insightful reply just to realize he was wasting his time on a troll.
Baiting, flaming, pranking, bullying, flamebaiting, pretty much any way of subtly or not subtly at all trying to disrupt a discussion and have people go off on wild rants and off-topic discussions and flamefests and whatnot has been known as trolling for a very long time. Sure the elaborate trap to lure the wary was one part of it, but there were always those looking for the cheap lulz. And if you can't win by trolling, you can always accuse someone else of being a troll. And if you can't find anyone to take the bait, be the clueless n00b too so you can get everyone to shout at you to stop feeding the troll.
Parent poster here, I tried to convince the my manager and sales department to give support on a time basis based (X years after delivery date), but the "that is not how other companies bigger than ours do it" argument won over mine. So as a result we update our versions based around the time we think we supported the old versions long enough.
I think a combination works best, major releases makes most sense when it comes to technology/code you must support while a minimum number of years makes sure you won't go Firefox and suddenly be at version 40. For all the other bashing Microsoft can take, their policy is actually a good model:
Mainstream Support for Business, Developer, and Desktop Operating Systems will be provided for 5 years or for 2 years after the successor product (N+1) is released, whichever is longer. Microsoft will also provide Extended Support for the 5 years following Mainstream support or for 2 years after the second successor product (N+2) is released, whichever is longer.
Basically you get a guaranteed 10 years of support from release, 7 years as long as you're buying the latest version (minimum 2+5) and if it takes longer the support period stretches too. Don't expect another XP though, Vista runs from January 2007 to April 2017, Win7 from October 2009 to January 2020 both 10 years, 3 months. And with Win10 seemingly on schedule for release this year it'll be the same with Win8.
"Oh come on officer, I was only 0.25c above the limit!"
This gets me thinking about what the most reliable data media would be to keep in my fire-rated home safe. CDs/DVDs/tapes could easily melt or warp rendering them useless
Ordinary fireproof safes are designed to keep papers from bursting into flames. Data rated fireproof safes keep the interior temperature under 125F/50C, like say this one so computer media survives just fine. In fact, this a "Why can't I be arsed to google this for five minutes?" question.
Well I suppose you could always hope the Republicans win and be called an ageist instead, going by their last two candidates.
Until they pass a law demanding that all encryption software must be able to comply with lawful warrants to decrypt the contents and outlaws the rest, making it a crime by iteself. Or just create some procedural rules to keep you in contempt of court until you decrypt it. You really think they're going to clamp down on all proprietary software and totally ignore open source just like that? I admire your optimism but if they can make this happen open source encryption will be on death row.
Cosmologists hotly debate a lot of the details, but their agreement on the fundamentals is near-unanimous.
Those who want to believe otherwise rarely let that get in their way, that we're still working out the minute details of complex interactions is an easy way to dismiss everything. See evolution, the climate, medicine, nutrition, ecosystems, pollution, almost everything that doesn't reduce down to a physics/chemistry experiment really.
It's the best tool for the job if you want to run a Windows network? Seriously, it's not like you decide management tools and let your platform/applications revolve around that. This is the step after you've convinced everyone to give up Outlook/Exchange and Word, accounting to give up Excel, PHBs to give up Powerpoint, design/marketing to give up Photoshop and every other bit of Windows-only software they got and your server admins ask "So what's our replacement for AD?" and they're going to ask you if it has features X, Y and Z just like the others did.
My guess is that every argument you just said will be met with a shrug and "It seems to work just fine for us, don't know what you're talking about. So how do we push a group policy to all clients in Linux?" and if your best answer is to write a script to ssh into each box and patch a configuration file they'll just roll their eyes and say "Linux does not have the necessary management features we need" and you've got one more group added to the list of migration opponents. Contrary to the *nix philosophy, I've yet to meet anyone happy to replace one tool with five, even if each is arguably a bit better. Swiss army knifes works quite well in the real world.
On the other hand, not an inch has been driven without a licensed driver behind the wheel. Until and unless it drives itself it's only a glorified cruise control, because it doesn't free you up to do anything else, it doesn't allow for self-driving cars and it doesn't lets minors, the intoxicated or anyone else impaired to use the car. It doesn't matter if it can drive 99% of the roads 99% of the time if we still need that human there for the 1% when something weird happens. And unlike industrial robots in controlled environment, there are going to be weird things happening.
You can look at the resistance when it comes to pilot-less planes, which should be a lot easier. They have autopilots, they have instrument landing systems and in theory they don't need pilots but in practice they all have them anyway. I suspect the same will happen with cars, in theory we don't need drivers but it'll take a really long while until it happens in practice. And that doesn't include any major setbacks like a critical bug causing a spectacular pile-up or mowing down a pedestrian. It only needs to happen once to set self-driving cars back 10 years or more.
Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.
About 2000 years ago, we mostly kept the peace for over 200 years. And you're measuring the casualties after the deadliest war in human history, particularly when you consider #2 and #3 being ~100 years long and WWII six so it's no wonder normal years look good. And when you consider the global thermonuclear war that almost happened in 1962, I think you're cherry picking data. I think perhaps it's safe to say we've swapped frequency with severity, because I don't think there's any doubt that a potential WWIII will dwarf WWII's casualties, possibly on day one.
Of course you might say that's not going to happen. That's what they said before WWI. That's what they said before WWII. That's what they'll say before WWIII. Don't forget that with alliances and pacts and whatnot one small dispute can start dragging more and more states into the conflict like dominoes falling. People around here stare at their local geopolitical bubble and don't realize that the same alliance that protects us is also likely to drag us into conflicts far far away to aid them, the way we expect them to aid us. It's like we don't want to acknowledge that part of the equation.
If you were the compliance officer, where would you put the transactional data from your bank?
On a WORM tape, that's the only right answer to this particular question.
If your data is worth keeping. LTO is the way to go. Three copies, on 3 different tapes, in each of three different states.
For ordinary backup of systems I'd consider just having enough copies on HDDs, because it tends to be fairly obvious when they fail. If the system is reasonably intelligent I should be able to plug in any drive and it'll seamlessly add it to the backup cloud downloading what it needs from other nodes, I'm not sure it's the most cost effective way but it's not really the price/TB that drives backup costs, often it's a total disaster to lose 10GB of important business documents, source code etc.
Manually swapping tapes without a tape robot is a massive pain and prone to human failure. If you have a single tape robot in a single location, that's a huge single point of failure. And if you have a redundant array of very expensive tape robots, well you're in the 0,1% of businesses I know. You'll find many companies with <100 employees total with maybe 50 at a main office and 10-20 at a couple branch offices. You can make a good geographically redundant backup system from that, as long as we're not talking huge (but important!) amounts of data.
And you know this how? Isn't this the concept of "pre-crime" (...) So we should prosecute "thought crime" should we?
It's not a thought crime if you have the intent to go through with it when you have the means and opportunity. If you write stories about kidnapping a kid or roleplay it with your adult girlfriend, that's fantasy and a thought crime. If someone provides you with ether, a getaway van with stolen plates and point out a secluded place where a kid likes to play alone late at night and you get caught trying to actually kidnap a child that's no longer a thought crime. Which is why we catch them in the act or reasonably close to, not where they might have any "alternate future" in which they don't go through with it.
Making it appear like the risk/reward ratio is in your favor is not entrapment. Maybe you wouldn't have taken the time and effort or found the courage to find/learn/make/use those means and opportunities yourself, but it's still not thought crime. It's more like real, unreleased criminal potential where they're testing your answer to "If you knew you could get away with it, would you....?" which is an entirely different question than "Do you ever dream of....?" because one implies a desire to carry it out in the real world and the other one doesn't. That's a rather important distinction.
Two sides of the same coin, isn't it? The government wants data about foreigners, from a foreign place. They want, in short, to spy. Their chosen method of attack is to pressure people in the USA who happen to have access to that data, as opposed to e.g. placing a mole inside a foreign organisation, but the tactic used does not change the goal of the mission.
Replace USA and Ireland with China and USA respectively and ask yourself if you think it's okay for the Chinese government to subpoena a Chinese company to provide data from a US subsidiary about US citizens, stored in the US. My guess is that most Americans would strongly object to their data being handed over to foreign governments that way, particularly without the US legal system getting a say. In particular, to a court not bound by the 4th amendment or any other protection that data might have had under US law. So it's one rule for us, one rule for everybody else.
It's like the US government hasn't backed down an inch since the Snowden revelations and is still in "all your data are belongs to us" mode. Then again people continue to use GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo, Facebook and all these other US services that'll jump when the US government yanks their chain so I guess people don't care enough. It's obviously to anyone that cares that any relation to the US is the touch of death when it comes to privacy.
Texting and it's roots in IRC talk like LOL, BRB and emoticons has greatly influenced informal communication, but if want to write a paper formal English hasn't changed nearly as much and that's without a governing body. My native language has been formally regulated for 100+ years, meaning there's a formal guide to what words and grammar are "correct" and that schools formally and universities, public institutions and many other informally defer to as correct Norwegian. It has been revised three times since WWII (1959, 1981, 2005) though the revisions of course incorporate and adapt to how people use it I still think it's fairly possible to have strong control over an artificial language.
What will kill any "simple" universal language is the verbosity, we say "I'm in" instead of "I agree to your proposal" even though it is grammatically gibberish, in what? And "I am" describes a state you're in, not a change of state like making a decision but it's effective assuming your counterpart also understands you. I believe some have worked on such a form of "intermediate language" as the basis of universal translators where everything is rigorously defined and only the mappings to human languages are ambiguous, but it's not a language anyone would speak.
And what we need changes over time, 150 years ago nobody knew a "car" so if we optimized for the 1800s there'd be nothing shorter than automobile free. Other words go out of need, when did you last use a quill? Today we'd happily relinquish it to be called a featherpen and leave the shorter word for something useful. Or the way people in Africa don't need many words for snow and ice, which obviously take up short combos in English. Which is also why we "steal" words like gay or tweet, that used to have entirely different meanings - it's not like homosexual has ceased to exist but it's way too many syllables for everyday use.
That's also why we need different layers of terminology, a doctor might talk to a three year old about how his tummy hurts, he might talk to you about how you have an ulcer and he might talk to another doctor about a venticular inflammation of the gasteroperiax interor or some other semi-Latin gibberish. We have different needs and a universal language often acts like there's one way we could speak to each other when that's clearly not the case no matter what language we speak in now. And it's probably more important that the doctors are able to quickly and exactly pass information between them than whether it's understandable for everyone else. Same with game developers talking about voxels and tesselation and so on, after all we are mostly not talking to people totally ignorant of the subject and we adapt.
You on the other hand are a wanker that thinks normal people - who are not anywhere near wealthy enough to defend themselves against the full might of a TREASON charge
Not even Snowden is going to be charged with that:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Of course they have a fair selection of others if they want to "throw the book" at you, unless you end up at Gitmo for waterboarding instead. But you get that one fig leaf to cover behind at least.
Not really, the doctrine of latches has two catches:
1. It involves an unreasonable delay in filing a lawsuit, not in discovering infringement. If you hear a 50 year old song on the radio and go "Hey... my dad wrote that 51 years ago" you can sue today, unless there's a statue of limitations. On the other hand if it was because of the band breaking up and you disagree with the way the copyrights were divided, the doctrine of latches would apply because your dad should have filed suit 50 years ago. It might apply if you were on a standards board and didn't disclose relevant patents that went into the standard, but there's no law against sticking your head in the sand for a few years before discovering your patent is being infringed. And the patent act will normally grant you six years of back pay for past infringement, which overrides general doctrines.
2. The other big limitation is that it only applies to damages from before the filing of the lawsuit, it will never negate the patent as a whole. So even if you're barred from recovering damages from earlier, which would be chump change anyway, from the moment it's filed the meter is running. And you could still be hit with an injunction to stop using the patented invention, basically it doesn't do anything to lessen the damage after you're caught with your foot in the bear trap. So the doctrine is really, really gimped when it comes to patents, it'll rarely if ever do you any good.
Actually the last machine I had with a turbo button was the DX4-100, if you turned off the turbo it ran at 66 MHz I think. It was totally pointless, no software assumed it ran at that speed. If they still had an XT/AT compatibility button that would actually have been useful, as it were I think it was just for marketing because people expected a "turbo" mode.
I guess you want to read it your way, what I read is that without the initial unrelated sensor glitch - which had corrected itself by then - the flight computer would have said "We're stalling and you want to pull up? I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that." But because the computer diagnosed itself as possibly going nuts and handed over control to these highly trained pilots who should know what to do, those morons acted like one of Pavlov's dogs at the sound of the stall warning. I'm sorry that the flight computer couldn't make a trained monkey land the plane, maybe next time try without the monkey?
Of course, the primary problem is no one can hardware accelerate VP9 right now, so it's all CPU decoded. (h.265 decoders are *just* starting to emerge). So 720p decoding in CPU is probably achievable, but 1080p or 4K... not so much.
For H.264, multithreading was an afterthought, I know HEVC has wavefront parallel processing that you can find a good illustration of here:
http://www.parabolaresearch.co...
If VP9 also has any similar features it should do fine on a multicore desktop, even if it lacks GPU support.
My guess is that Google lawyers didn't screw anything up, and Google would eventually win the court battle; but perhaps the FUD caused by a lawsuit would make the hardware manufacturers pass on VP9.
I don't think even Google's lawyers could with certainty say they don't violate any obscure video patent somewhere. The GIF standard was torpedoed by a single patent, I'd be most surprised if there wasn't at least one shark in the water with a patent that VP9 violates, just waiting for it to get popular and to sue in East Texas for billions rather than play MPEG LAs game. Why be one of hundreds of sharks getting a nibble of the H.264 patents when you can be the one raking in all the VP9 patent royalties with a cut from every Android device sold?
You don't need to be an evil mastermind to come up with that plan, just your average corporate scum which is why Google doesn't really want to commit. They want to use the VPx codecs to force reasonable H.264/H.265 license terms, but much like people waving around the threat to migrate to Linux they don't really want to jump into the unknown waters unless they have to. Is it FUD? Well, that depends on whether you believe there's a real chance of shark attack or not. Not every warning of danger is FUD.
They probably also have plans for what to do if we're invaded by Canada. Not because it is likely, but because a nation this large can afford to plan for unlikely things. Some of those unlikely things will actually happen.
From what I gather that's mostly for training purposes because they don't want to hand out their actual plans and intelligence against real geopolitical enemies beyond a very limited circle and it's a lot more politically accepted. What they really care about is planning the movement of troops, tanks, ships, planes, formations, supply lines, support columns and so on. It's not like they're all that different from the military's point of view.