3 hours before I need to be at work and go to the gym, and try my damned hardest not to eat the free biscuits or cakes when I get in to the office.
I swear you're some kind of alien, I can't even work up the motivation to take the stairs in the morning. Anywhere between noon and midnight I don't have any problem exercising, but I only get up at the last possible snooze to get to work on time.
Here's the secret about exercise: It can't fix a bad diet. Even though I'm now in fairly good shape exercise-wise, it takes me an hour to work off 5-600 kcal. That is the equivalent of about 100 grams of potato chips, that I could snack away in a heartbeat. Gulp that down with half a liter of soda and you're already 200 kcal past what you could reasonably exercise off if you spent an hour at the gym. Every day. While I do recommend exercise as an additional way to lose weight instead of or in addition to a diet, if you're not breaking even without any you're fighting an uphill battle. I tried that once and eventually you get tired of exercising just to keep your weight in check and spiral upwards again.
Now there's vitamins and minerals and whatnot else needed to eat healthy, but the key to calorie intake is basically hunger management. Eat low calorie foods - I don't really care which but they fill the stomach and you can't get fat on 20 kcal/100g salads and vegetables. Beware of "light" products that are a little healthier than regular but still basically very unhealthy, don't cheat yourself into thinking "light" potato chips are good for you. Don't eat until you're full, the stomach thinks it's missing out on calories and goes into high gear to store fat - just enough that you don't get hungry again right away. Eat early in the day, at bedtime you should be so close to hungry as possible because your body won't wake you at night to eat, sleep takes priority.
Now exercise is good for two things, endurance and strength. Trust me, it helps a lot to have 5kg of muscles and 15kgs of excess fat instead of 20kg of excess fat. And it helps to not be wheezing and chest pounding at the least bit of strain. But any amount of exercise that matters take time, taking the stairs instead of the elevator only helps an ever so tiny little bit. Make time, it's your health it's about. If you need to make it work with your family, make the time with your family active. It doesn't have to be the dead serious gym exercise to work, anything that gets you out of the chair and in motion works. But I'll give you a silver lining, when you're in bad shape it's hard because you can't do it long enough and hard enough to matter, but if you get there it's easier to keep it going.
For one, owning an idea is in direct contradiction with owning property. If you "own" the BLT sandwich, what you essentially own is the right to deny everyone else to make a BLT sandwich even though they have their own bacon, lettuce, tomato and bread. Some would say, no you don't have the right to deny me that because that'd be in violation of my right to do what I want with my property. And that even though I might decide to flip the bits on my HDD according to a template I found on the Internet those bits remain mine, not yours. That even though you might want for and wish for and probably on some moral level should be compensated for your efforts, surely credited and indeed it'd be in my interest that you took interest in producing more you still don't own the right to deny me the use of my own property.
In short, I don't have a major problem with a society that doesn't honor the owning of ideas. Even less so when one in desperation to fight for those alleged rights start attacking the infrastructure, service providers, search engines, file hosts and so on that make up the Internet and starts playing fast and loose with due process and the principle that you're innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps that is unfair to the producers who act decently and try to provide the services that their consumers want, but like in the discussion of ad blockers if some misbehave it's easier to just cease all of it. I'm sure the good authors, artists and so on will find a way to make a living even in a post-copyright world. We're certainly not going to run short on entertainment...
I was referring to the idealist (or radical) view of free speech that states that the legality of communication should be independent of its content. The Piratebay tried to use a similar interpretation of free speech in this case, so this view seemed relevant.
Which would strike down libel, slander, threats, false advertising, stock scams, many forms of fraud, false witness, lying under oath, all confidentiality laws for your doctor/priest/lawyer (hopefully not all the same), revealing classified information, public disturbance, giving pornography to minors, kiddie porn and so on. If you're going with a legal theory that'd make you tear up half the law book, you're probably going to lose...
You pointed to a place where you might legally borrow it, a torrent points to where you might illegally download it. I would think that's rather relevant...
Because if you have network transparency in the display system then all your applications get network transparency for free. They just talk to the display system like they always do and the display system throws them up anywhere you're connected to, as you like.
Except if you have very little bandwidth it is absolutely horrible and you'd do far better with a web interface and if you have lots of bandwidth you can use VNC. The pipe between your CPU/RAM and GPU is one of the fattest pipes in a computer able to push many GB/s and when you replace that with tin cans and a string you need to do something, it's like arguing that if I replace your graphics card so the game renders at 1 FPS that it's now supported for free. I'd never, ever design a system that'd depend on X11 for remote access, would you?
I would go with "less" but they don't seem to have any imperialistic tendencies anymore. What goes on inside the Russian borders is another matter, but they seem to have more than enough internal issues to keep them from invading anyone. China on the other hand is still rattling the sabers over Tibet, Taiwan, those islands off Japan and so on, they'd still like to conquer.
Not everyone, but the simulations of a full nuclear war with all nukes on both sides launched will lead to a nasty nuclear winter that'll last years with mass death of animal life, very poor crops and outright starvation. The effect is barely noticeable with a few warheads but with thousands and thousands of warheads whirling dust into the atmosphere out planet would temporarily become a very inhospitable place to live.
No. Sometimes, they are statistical observation. Sometimes they are just confirmation bias.
Most of the time they're just a small group that distinguish themselves so clearly. For example if you asked me to mime an American, I'd probably go for a gun-toting Texan even though I'm perfectly aware that they're hardly representative of a country of 300 million. But those other people are a lot like other people found other places, so if you're going for the uniquely American they rise to the top of the pile. Same with almost every other stereotype I can think of, they're more like a mascot or caricature than reflecting reality.
At least those based on things like country, now people of the same profession on the other hand can actually be disturbingly like their stereotype. It's something to do with the personality of people attracted to the same line of work and the cultural conformity, like a friend of mine once said after speaking at a conference for county auditors. "I went to the conference thinking it would dispel the stereotypes I had, instead I found they were all true." People have an incredible way of adjusting to what they perceive as normal and that becomes the stereotype.
but if you never reveal anything, never show support for anything - what's the point in having an online presence? is this really taking the never talk to the cops video to the extreme? never talk to anyone publicly on record? never sign a petition for anything? HOW FUCKING FUCKED UP ARE AMERICANS TODAY?
Facebook invitations is the only reason I care to have a profile there. If you want to get to know me, get to know me don't be a Facebook stalker. At least there's nothing I feel like broadcasting to all the "friends" I have there, nor does 99.9% of what shows up there interest me. I could go through it I suppose and hide everything but the people I actually care about hearing something from it's always awkward if you're on Facebook and didn't see some major event a semi-close friend posted because you've hidden them. My profile is a wasteland, I never post status updates and I never comment or like anything anyone else wrote so if anybody asks, no I don't read your (or anybody else's Facebook).
I figure over-reliance on this sort of analysis explains why Facebook will show me ads for dating services even though it knows I'm married. I like all this geeky stuff, so obviously the advertisers assume I'm single.
That is of course one possible explanation... try again.
And I still maintain if we had funded NASA like we funded them in the 1960's and early 1970's we'd be at Alpha Centauri or Barnard's Star by now.
Earth-Moon: 356,700 km (closest) Earth-Mars: 54,600,000 km (closest) Earth-Alpha Centauri: 42,479,700,000,000 km (~fixed)
Fastest spacecraft to date (escape velocity): Voyager 1 (1977), 17.145 km/s
Now assume we could launch at that speed and travel a straight line: Moon: 6 hours Mars: 37 days Alpha Centauri: 75000 years, give or take a couple millenniums
To be there now, we'd have to have launched a rocket ship travelling at 0.1c (that's 30000 km/s) in the early 70s. Even the "Momentum Limited" Orion which is the closest thing to a semi-plausible design we have - if you call a rocket 140 times the size of the Saturn V loaded with 300,000 one megaton nukes plausible - was planned to take 133 years. Maintain it all you like, but don't be surprised when other people maintain that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Apparently there's good reason to think it's not atoms at all:
A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation. Study of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang produces an upper bound on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe, which indicates that the vast majority of dark matter in the universe cannot be baryons, and thus does not form atoms.
Of course they could be wrong, any models of what happened during the Big Bang are extreme extrapolations. Or it could be the single Big Bang theory that is wrong, that there's lots of old, dark matter from previous big bangs. But the most plausible theory seems to be something like massive neutrinos.
If I recall correctly the specific issue was that Apple's standard terms and conditions limits use to 5 "authorized devices", which is more restrictive than the GPL and so in violation of "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Of course you can have as many iTunes accounts as you like so infinite*5 ~= infinite, but technically he was entirely correct.
As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.
So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.
If the model used by physicists doesn't agree with what is objectively seen by the astrophysicists with their shiny new telescopes, then there is still work to be done by the physicists.
True, but you still need to know if a larger collider will answer anything. For example we still haven't seen the graviton, we're doing a few indirect searches for gravitational waves but a graviton detector is so far beyond our means we know it wouldn't be sensitive enough. The LHC will go up to 14 TeV, is there anything interesting in building a 20-50 TeV collider or do we need PeV (1000 TeV) or EeV (1000000 TeV) energies to answer more? For so many years of work and billions of dollars we at least expect to say what it rules out, even if nothing was found.
What is more important, to get the tube back down very slowly without damaging it (and burning up a huge amount of fuel while doing it and obviously making the entire flight much less efficient) or putting more cargo into orbit? I think he can achieve partial reusability by bringing down the rocket on parachutes (or at least the engines, which are probably the most intricate and expensive part) while using all the fuel in the rocket for its actual purpose - launch cargo.
Have you tried building a parachute to land 25 tons? NASA has for Ares I and it is very heavy and complex, more than a ton in itself. Alternatively you could do just the engines that are about 5-6 tons but then you'd need some kind of detachment system as well and you'll be throwing away a lot of expensive sensors and electronics not just a big tube. The bigger downside is that they're uncontrolled, you need to clear a big sea area, recover them then transport them back to base - not to mention they're drenched in salt water. If you just land there's not any added costs. The empty shell is only 7-8% of the launch weight and you're only slowing the decent so how do you need? Fuel is still only about $200k on a $50 million launch so even if you have to increase that by 10% you're probably shaving many millions off each launch. I think they know what they're doing.
Myself and I assume many others, blacklist the likes of "ad.doubleclick.net". On sites I like, maybe I'll get around to whitelisting it on that page, but maybe not since I don't really want doubleclick tracking me.
I don't know how easy it'd be to set up, but it is clearly possible to allow the ads images through but block any kind of tracking cookies. For example by setting that globally in the browser, even though the site is whitelisted.
People didn't install ad blockers to block your site specifically, they did it once because of some annoying ads or just the vast volume of ads everywhere. They don't really think about the fact that they're doing it and depriving you of ad revenue. I would make a box one pixel higher/wider than the ad (since many blocks are based on standard ad sizes in addition to lists) with a background that said something like "[website name] is funded by ad revenue. If you like the content you find here, please do not block our ads. Thank you." so that if you have no ad blocker installed the ad loads on top. If you block the ad they get that message instead. Start there, only take more drastic measures if you have to.
Unfortunately after reading the dissenting opinion, I'm more inclined to agree with that one.
1) It makes an entirely illogical and unprincipled distinction between digital and regular information. If you carry a personal diary with your most innermost and intimate thoughts it would now be stronger protected on an iPad than a paper diary, which is still subject to border search because it doesn't require forensics to examine.
2) It makes a strange argument on quantity of information on digital devices, which seem to imply that the more of your life you take with you across the border, the better protected it should be. The dissenting opinion is the closest thing I've seen to humor in a court decision, it shows just how absurd this would be.
3) Most importantly, it creates a bar of reasonable suspicion yet sets it ridiculously low. To quote the dissenting opinion:
All things considered, the fact that an individual with a 15-year-old sex conviction was also a frequent traveler appears to be a rather weak lynchpin for reasonable suspicion. Yet, other than Cotterman's prior conviction and travels, the factors cited by the majority are far too generalized to provide even an indicia of suspicion that Cotterman was involved in sex tourism.
In fact, the court several times starts with the conclusion "if he were a child pornographer" then works out the premises, then he'd be likely to have a digital camera, then he'd be travelling to countries know for underage sex tourism such as Mexico, then he'd password protect his files then completely and utterly ignores how many people would travel to Mexico with a digital camera and a password protected file without being child pornographers. All this does is water out "reasonable suspicion" to mean "extremely circumstantial evidence that may mean the person has a marginally higher probability of committing this crime than the average citizen." It is pretty much the legalization of "Driving While Black" pullovers if they have a marginally higher crime rate.
They also went on to state that a warrant for such a minor infringement was not necessary, despite the Fourth Amendments declaration that no search or seizure of a person or thing occur without a warrant issued by a detached neutral magistrate.
Except it doesn't explicitly say that, it says no "unreasonable searches and seizures" then lays out conditions for when a warrant makes it reasonable but doesn't explicitly say that is the only way. If a police officer chases a pickpocket, catches him "in the act" but together with the wallet also finds drugs in his pockets, is that then an unreasonable search? It is certainly made without a warrant. The courts have never interpreted the fourth amendment as strictly as that.
Notice I used the word 'search', not the word 'stop'. The Border Patrol is allowed to set up checkpoints within the 60-100 mile region where it can conduct routine stops as part of its mission to control illegal immigration. At such places it is not allowed to conduct suspicion-less searches. They may ask you questions which you can respond to voluntarily.
While that is partially true, it doesn't really reflect the reality of it. I've read a few cases and during a "stop" they can search your vehicle well enough to ensure there are no other occupants without any suspicion. This means looking in your trunk, under your back seats and anywhere else at their discretion they decide is large enough to conceal a person. Anything they see in "plain sight" within this context - that is when they've opened the trunk to check there's no one there - is fair game to be used against you. However I read that a an officer that picked up a jacket, searched its pockets and found a small quantity of drugs was considered an illegal "search", so it's not entirely the same as a full-blown search. But they can do a lot more than "ask you questions" if they so please.
He's side-stepping the issue in that the point is that Canonical wields more power than the average contributor, and thus is in more of an authoritarian relationship.
Well duh, are you also going to complain that Red Hat calls most the shots for Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Unless things have changed radically while I wasn't paying attention, Ubuntu is still very much Canonical's product. Working with the community and being run by the community are two entirely different things and Canonical clearly isn't planning to let someone else tell them what to do. This is more of a wagon train, if you want to join up with Canonical because you're going in the same direction you can, but they still set the destination and if you don't like it, well maybe you shouldn't be in it instead of complaining that this not where you'd like to go. There's not really a shortage of other distros to work with if their goals are more similar to your own, is it?
That is a problem, but I don't think Shuttleworth is the cure. Superficial complexity is to a large part just that, a thin skin on top of a mass of the same complexity. You can take away all the screensaver options you'd like but it doesn't make it simpler when people have hardware that doesn't work right or upgrades that has regressions or the desktop is messed up or applications that crash or don't work right. Every time I've had to fix things with command line-fu it's because things don't work as they ought to in the first place. It's just an option to open the hood and start poking at the innards when the car won't run or the lights are out or the windshield wipers won't wipe.
In all honestly, I can probably figure out how to use any clusterfuck of a user interface you throw at me, I'd probably grumble at that but if it meant it was a silly coating on a solid rock I'd deal with it. But in my experience it's not, it's just the same rough unpolished rock in a new and poorer wrapper. Because window dressing is easy, fixing those deep underlying technical issues is really not. If the code is overall not that great, everyone will run into bugs but it won't be the same bugs and it's just a gigantic whack-a-mole fixing bugs for 10-100 users at a time, hoping you don't add more faster than you can stomp them out.
Slashdot Mirror
3 hours before I need to be at work and go to the gym, and try my damned hardest not to eat the free biscuits or cakes when I get in to the office.
I swear you're some kind of alien, I can't even work up the motivation to take the stairs in the morning. Anywhere between noon and midnight I don't have any problem exercising, but I only get up at the last possible snooze to get to work on time.
Here's the secret about exercise: It can't fix a bad diet. Even though I'm now in fairly good shape exercise-wise, it takes me an hour to work off 5-600 kcal. That is the equivalent of about 100 grams of potato chips, that I could snack away in a heartbeat. Gulp that down with half a liter of soda and you're already 200 kcal past what you could reasonably exercise off if you spent an hour at the gym. Every day. While I do recommend exercise as an additional way to lose weight instead of or in addition to a diet, if you're not breaking even without any you're fighting an uphill battle. I tried that once and eventually you get tired of exercising just to keep your weight in check and spiral upwards again.
Now there's vitamins and minerals and whatnot else needed to eat healthy, but the key to calorie intake is basically hunger management. Eat low calorie foods - I don't really care which but they fill the stomach and you can't get fat on 20 kcal/100g salads and vegetables. Beware of "light" products that are a little healthier than regular but still basically very unhealthy, don't cheat yourself into thinking "light" potato chips are good for you. Don't eat until you're full, the stomach thinks it's missing out on calories and goes into high gear to store fat - just enough that you don't get hungry again right away. Eat early in the day, at bedtime you should be so close to hungry as possible because your body won't wake you at night to eat, sleep takes priority.
Now exercise is good for two things, endurance and strength. Trust me, it helps a lot to have 5kg of muscles and 15kgs of excess fat instead of 20kg of excess fat. And it helps to not be wheezing and chest pounding at the least bit of strain. But any amount of exercise that matters take time, taking the stairs instead of the elevator only helps an ever so tiny little bit. Make time, it's your health it's about. If you need to make it work with your family, make the time with your family active. It doesn't have to be the dead serious gym exercise to work, anything that gets you out of the chair and in motion works. But I'll give you a silver lining, when you're in bad shape it's hard because you can't do it long enough and hard enough to matter, but if you get there it's easier to keep it going.
For one, owning an idea is in direct contradiction with owning property. If you "own" the BLT sandwich, what you essentially own is the right to deny everyone else to make a BLT sandwich even though they have their own bacon, lettuce, tomato and bread. Some would say, no you don't have the right to deny me that because that'd be in violation of my right to do what I want with my property. And that even though I might decide to flip the bits on my HDD according to a template I found on the Internet those bits remain mine, not yours. That even though you might want for and wish for and probably on some moral level should be compensated for your efforts, surely credited and indeed it'd be in my interest that you took interest in producing more you still don't own the right to deny me the use of my own property.
In short, I don't have a major problem with a society that doesn't honor the owning of ideas. Even less so when one in desperation to fight for those alleged rights start attacking the infrastructure, service providers, search engines, file hosts and so on that make up the Internet and starts playing fast and loose with due process and the principle that you're innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps that is unfair to the producers who act decently and try to provide the services that their consumers want, but like in the discussion of ad blockers if some misbehave it's easier to just cease all of it. I'm sure the good authors, artists and so on will find a way to make a living even in a post-copyright world. We're certainly not going to run short on entertainment...
I was referring to the idealist (or radical) view of free speech that states that the legality of communication should be independent of its content. The Piratebay tried to use a similar interpretation of free speech in this case, so this view seemed relevant.
Which would strike down libel, slander, threats, false advertising, stock scams, many forms of fraud, false witness, lying under oath, all confidentiality laws for your doctor/priest/lawyer (hopefully not all the same), revealing classified information, public disturbance, giving pornography to minors, kiddie porn and so on. If you're going with a legal theory that'd make you tear up half the law book, you're probably going to lose...
You pointed to a place where you might legally borrow it, a torrent points to where you might illegally download it. I would think that's rather relevant...
Because if you have network transparency in the display system then all your applications get network transparency for free. They just talk to the display system like they always do and the display system throws them up anywhere you're connected to, as you like.
Except if you have very little bandwidth it is absolutely horrible and you'd do far better with a web interface and if you have lots of bandwidth you can use VNC. The pipe between your CPU/RAM and GPU is one of the fattest pipes in a computer able to push many GB/s and when you replace that with tin cans and a string you need to do something, it's like arguing that if I replace your graphics card so the game renders at 1 FPS that it's now supported for free. I'd never, ever design a system that'd depend on X11 for remote access, would you?
With Russia embracing democracy, more or less
I would go with "less" but they don't seem to have any imperialistic tendencies anymore. What goes on inside the Russian borders is another matter, but they seem to have more than enough internal issues to keep them from invading anyone. China on the other hand is still rattling the sabers over Tibet, Taiwan, those islands off Japan and so on, they'd still like to conquer.
Not everyone, but the simulations of a full nuclear war with all nukes on both sides launched will lead to a nasty nuclear winter that'll last years with mass death of animal life, very poor crops and outright starvation. The effect is barely noticeable with a few warheads but with thousands and thousands of warheads whirling dust into the atmosphere out planet would temporarily become a very inhospitable place to live.
No. Sometimes, they are statistical observation. Sometimes they are just confirmation bias.
Most of the time they're just a small group that distinguish themselves so clearly. For example if you asked me to mime an American, I'd probably go for a gun-toting Texan even though I'm perfectly aware that they're hardly representative of a country of 300 million. But those other people are a lot like other people found other places, so if you're going for the uniquely American they rise to the top of the pile. Same with almost every other stereotype I can think of, they're more like a mascot or caricature than reflecting reality.
At least those based on things like country, now people of the same profession on the other hand can actually be disturbingly like their stereotype. It's something to do with the personality of people attracted to the same line of work and the cultural conformity, like a friend of mine once said after speaking at a conference for county auditors. "I went to the conference thinking it would dispel the stereotypes I had, instead I found they were all true." People have an incredible way of adjusting to what they perceive as normal and that becomes the stereotype.
but if you never reveal anything, never show support for anything - what's the point in having an online presence? is this really taking the never talk to the cops video to the extreme? never talk to anyone publicly on record? never sign a petition for anything? HOW FUCKING FUCKED UP ARE AMERICANS TODAY?
Facebook invitations is the only reason I care to have a profile there. If you want to get to know me, get to know me don't be a Facebook stalker. At least there's nothing I feel like broadcasting to all the "friends" I have there, nor does 99.9% of what shows up there interest me. I could go through it I suppose and hide everything but the people I actually care about hearing something from it's always awkward if you're on Facebook and didn't see some major event a semi-close friend posted because you've hidden them. My profile is a wasteland, I never post status updates and I never comment or like anything anyone else wrote so if anybody asks, no I don't read your (or anybody else's Facebook).
I figure over-reliance on this sort of analysis explains why Facebook will show me ads for dating services even though it knows I'm married. I like all this geeky stuff, so obviously the advertisers assume I'm single.
That is of course one possible explanation... try again.
And I still maintain if we had funded NASA like we funded them in the 1960's and early 1970's we'd be at Alpha Centauri or Barnard's Star by now.
Earth-Moon: 356,700 km (closest)
Earth-Mars: 54,600,000 km (closest)
Earth-Alpha Centauri: 42,479,700,000,000 km (~fixed)
Fastest spacecraft to date (escape velocity): Voyager 1 (1977), 17.145 km/s
Now assume we could launch at that speed and travel a straight line:
Moon: 6 hours
Mars: 37 days
Alpha Centauri: 75000 years, give or take a couple millenniums
To be there now, we'd have to have launched a rocket ship travelling at 0.1c (that's 30000 km/s) in the early 70s. Even the "Momentum Limited" Orion which is the closest thing to a semi-plausible design we have - if you call a rocket 140 times the size of the Saturn V loaded with 300,000 one megaton nukes plausible - was planned to take 133 years. Maintain it all you like, but don't be surprised when other people maintain that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Apparently there's good reason to think it's not atoms at all:
A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation. Study of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang produces an upper bound on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe, which indicates that the vast majority of dark matter in the universe cannot be baryons, and thus does not form atoms.
Of course they could be wrong, any models of what happened during the Big Bang are extreme extrapolations. Or it could be the single Big Bang theory that is wrong, that there's lots of old, dark matter from previous big bangs. But the most plausible theory seems to be something like massive neutrinos.
The GPL doesn't require DRM removal.
If I recall correctly the specific issue was that Apple's standard terms and conditions limits use to 5 "authorized devices", which is more restrictive than the GPL and so in violation of "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Of course you can have as many iTunes accounts as you like so infinite*5 ~= infinite, but technically he was entirely correct.
As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.
So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.
If the model used by physicists doesn't agree with what is objectively seen by the astrophysicists with their shiny new telescopes, then there is still work to be done by the physicists.
True, but you still need to know if a larger collider will answer anything. For example we still haven't seen the graviton, we're doing a few indirect searches for gravitational waves but a graviton detector is so far beyond our means we know it wouldn't be sensitive enough. The LHC will go up to 14 TeV, is there anything interesting in building a 20-50 TeV collider or do we need PeV (1000 TeV) or EeV (1000000 TeV) energies to answer more? For so many years of work and billions of dollars we at least expect to say what it rules out, even if nothing was found.
What is more important, to get the tube back down very slowly without damaging it (and burning up a huge amount of fuel while doing it and obviously making the entire flight much less efficient) or putting more cargo into orbit? I think he can achieve partial reusability by bringing down the rocket on parachutes (or at least the engines, which are probably the most intricate and expensive part) while using all the fuel in the rocket for its actual purpose - launch cargo.
Have you tried building a parachute to land 25 tons? NASA has for Ares I and it is very heavy and complex, more than a ton in itself. Alternatively you could do just the engines that are about 5-6 tons but then you'd need some kind of detachment system as well and you'll be throwing away a lot of expensive sensors and electronics not just a big tube. The bigger downside is that they're uncontrolled, you need to clear a big sea area, recover them then transport them back to base - not to mention they're drenched in salt water. If you just land there's not any added costs. The empty shell is only 7-8% of the launch weight and you're only slowing the decent so how do you need? Fuel is still only about $200k on a $50 million launch so even if you have to increase that by 10% you're probably shaving many millions off each launch. I think they know what they're doing.
Myself and I assume many others, blacklist the likes of "ad.doubleclick.net". On sites I like, maybe I'll get around to whitelisting it on that page, but maybe not since I don't really want doubleclick tracking me.
I don't know how easy it'd be to set up, but it is clearly possible to allow the ads images through but block any kind of tracking cookies. For example by setting that globally in the browser, even though the site is whitelisted.
People didn't install ad blockers to block your site specifically, they did it once because of some annoying ads or just the vast volume of ads everywhere. They don't really think about the fact that they're doing it and depriving you of ad revenue. I would make a box one pixel higher/wider than the ad (since many blocks are based on standard ad sizes in addition to lists) with a background that said something like "[website name] is funded by ad revenue. If you like the content you find here, please do not block our ads. Thank you." so that if you have no ad blocker installed the ad loads on top. If you block the ad they get that message instead. Start there, only take more drastic measures if you have to.
Unfortunately after reading the dissenting opinion, I'm more inclined to agree with that one.
1) It makes an entirely illogical and unprincipled distinction between digital and regular information. If you carry a personal diary with your most innermost and intimate thoughts it would now be stronger protected on an iPad than a paper diary, which is still subject to border search because it doesn't require forensics to examine.
2) It makes a strange argument on quantity of information on digital devices, which seem to imply that the more of your life you take with you across the border, the better protected it should be. The dissenting opinion is the closest thing I've seen to humor in a court decision, it shows just how absurd this would be.
3) Most importantly, it creates a bar of reasonable suspicion yet sets it ridiculously low. To quote the dissenting opinion:
All things considered, the fact that an individual with a 15-year-old sex conviction was also a frequent traveler appears to be a rather weak lynchpin for reasonable suspicion. Yet, other than Cotterman's prior conviction and travels, the factors cited by the majority are far too generalized to provide even an indicia of suspicion that Cotterman was involved in sex tourism.
In fact, the court several times starts with the conclusion "if he were a child pornographer" then works out the premises, then he'd be likely to have a digital camera, then he'd be travelling to countries know for underage sex tourism such as Mexico, then he'd password protect his files then completely and utterly ignores how many people would travel to Mexico with a digital camera and a password protected file without being child pornographers. All this does is water out "reasonable suspicion" to mean "extremely circumstantial evidence that may mean the person has a marginally higher probability of committing this crime than the average citizen." It is pretty much the legalization of "Driving While Black" pullovers if they have a marginally higher crime rate.
They also went on to state that a warrant for such a minor infringement was not necessary, despite the Fourth Amendments declaration that no search or seizure of a person or thing occur without a warrant issued by a detached neutral magistrate.
Except it doesn't explicitly say that, it says no "unreasonable searches and seizures" then lays out conditions for when a warrant makes it reasonable but doesn't explicitly say that is the only way. If a police officer chases a pickpocket, catches him "in the act" but together with the wallet also finds drugs in his pockets, is that then an unreasonable search? It is certainly made without a warrant. The courts have never interpreted the fourth amendment as strictly as that.
Notice I used the word 'search', not the word 'stop'. The Border Patrol is allowed to set up checkpoints within the 60-100 mile region where it can conduct routine stops as part of its mission to control illegal immigration. At such places it is not allowed to conduct suspicion-less searches. They may ask you questions which you can respond to voluntarily.
While that is partially true, it doesn't really reflect the reality of it. I've read a few cases and during a "stop" they can search your vehicle well enough to ensure there are no other occupants without any suspicion. This means looking in your trunk, under your back seats and anywhere else at their discretion they decide is large enough to conceal a person. Anything they see in "plain sight" within this context - that is when they've opened the trunk to check there's no one there - is fair game to be used against you. However I read that a an officer that picked up a jacket, searched its pockets and found a small quantity of drugs was considered an illegal "search", so it's not entirely the same as a full-blown search. But they can do a lot more than "ask you questions" if they so please.
He's side-stepping the issue in that the point is that Canonical wields more power than the average contributor, and thus is in more of an authoritarian relationship.
Well duh, are you also going to complain that Red Hat calls most the shots for Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Unless things have changed radically while I wasn't paying attention, Ubuntu is still very much Canonical's product. Working with the community and being run by the community are two entirely different things and Canonical clearly isn't planning to let someone else tell them what to do. This is more of a wagon train, if you want to join up with Canonical because you're going in the same direction you can, but they still set the destination and if you don't like it, well maybe you shouldn't be in it instead of complaining that this not where you'd like to go. There's not really a shortage of other distros to work with if their goals are more similar to your own, is it?
He did until he left her at that Gnome 2 machine
Doesn't Unity show JPGs? If so, I can understand why the nerds hate it.
That is a problem, but I don't think Shuttleworth is the cure. Superficial complexity is to a large part just that, a thin skin on top of a mass of the same complexity. You can take away all the screensaver options you'd like but it doesn't make it simpler when people have hardware that doesn't work right or upgrades that has regressions or the desktop is messed up or applications that crash or don't work right. Every time I've had to fix things with command line-fu it's because things don't work as they ought to in the first place. It's just an option to open the hood and start poking at the innards when the car won't run or the lights are out or the windshield wipers won't wipe.
In all honestly, I can probably figure out how to use any clusterfuck of a user interface you throw at me, I'd probably grumble at that but if it meant it was a silly coating on a solid rock I'd deal with it. But in my experience it's not, it's just the same rough unpolished rock in a new and poorer wrapper. Because window dressing is easy, fixing those deep underlying technical issues is really not. If the code is overall not that great, everyone will run into bugs but it won't be the same bugs and it's just a gigantic whack-a-mole fixing bugs for 10-100 users at a time, hoping you don't add more faster than you can stomp them out.