The biggest problem I see with this is that it flips the responsibility over to the one who says the emperor has no clothes. While it is difficult to create truly anonymous data and it would be nice to stop large law-abiding companies from trying to break down any compartmentalization you've done, I fear the effect will be quite the opposite. Because now if you call anyone out on poor anonymization it must be because you've tried exactly what this law prohibits, so white hats will be silenced. The companies will get lazier, because it's cheaper. And the black hats will have a field day with it.
1) One or a few distribution companies manages to hit critical mass so everyone else "have to" be there. This is what happened with Spotify in the music business, who is now making a big squeeze play on the artists instead of the label.
2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.
I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.
Actually the US is up to 10th place in the 2017 Q1 figures. It's unevenly distributed though, the US is 37th in >4 Mbps adoption. Even Russia got you beat in 33rd place. And I think that's reflected in a lot of the discussions here, either you got competition and it's great or you don't and it's terrible. By the way, Akamai's figures are way below the national statistic on what people have. Here in Norway I see it reports the average connection as 23.5 Mbps. According to the national statistics the mean broadband connection is now 59.5 Mbps, the median 31.5 Mbps. Here 44% of the population is now on fiber and increasing rapidly, though the normal speed tier is still 100-150 Mbps. Gigabit is still very rare, even though it's available for quite many.
The man is a biologist are you honestly asserting there are no biological differences between men and women? That there are no mental differences?
There are certainly mental differences between men and women. Whether they're innate or cultural/social constructs is putting your hand in a wasp's nest, since it would be extremely hard to isolate boys and girls from all gender preconceptions from birth to adulthood. As a biologist he seems to have come down rather hard on the nature side in the nature vs nurture debate. The logical consequence is that there will be imbalance in the workplace and that Google is sub-optimizing by promoting equality where some groups are statistically better fit than others. At least he's going for the soft conclusion that some are less desirable rather than simply incapable.
His problem is that any actual biological differences have drowned in a sea of abuse where people have claimed a natural order of race, sex, caste etc. and exploiting minute differences in physical attributes or biased tests of intelligence to further those agendas, only to be proven false time and time again. So when the boy has cried wolf too many times, people will start to assume this is just yet another self-serving attempt to re-establish the patriarchy as the natural order of things, that men are born to lead and women to follow. Many people are now convinced there is no wolf and there never was a wolf, only faked signs of wolf and hence he's either a bigot, liar or a tool.
Which can be pretty frustrating for a biologist that is quite convinced that these differences are real and won't simply disappear by trying to raise children gender-neutral. People have tried and failed but there's always been plenty opportunity to blame society for that. Unlike many other forms of potential discrimination, it's very hard to find some place that doesn't have an attitude towards gender. You'd probably have to start somewhere like a nudist colony to even have a shot. And even they wouldn't exist in a vacuum. Because unless you got some smoking gun proof that it's truly biology, it will backfire that the traits he sees are the learned gender role used to cement the gender role.
Then 54% are ignorant about the operations of a modern commercial airliner.
Not really. On any ordinary day I expect the plane can take off, follow the flight path and land without any problems. It's the extraordinary days I worry about.
A pilot's primary responsibility is managing and executing the decision-making.
Which is why there's three big issues I see: 1. Loss of propulsion 2. Loss of communication 3. Loss of navigation
If the plane is losing power, how does it try to make an emergency landing? If it can't contact the tower, what will it do? If it doesn't know where it is, how does it locate a landing site? The first one is real hard, you must know a lot more than airports to land on the Hudson. What do you do if the last instruction from the tower was a holding pattern and you're running out of fuel? And if all other systems fail, can it navigate by visual orientation like a human?
Planes are the last place I want fully automated pilots because unlike an autonomous car or train or whatever simply hitting the emergency brakes and coming to a complete stop is not an option. Even if nothing is going right you need to pick the least bad option to try saving as many as possible, if you do nothing and just run out of run or ram into something it's pretty much a guaranteed death sentence.
It is not like the CPU is testing for that particular combination of conditions alone and conditionally segfaulting. Really, there is a flaw in the CPU design which so far has only been demonstrated to exhibit itself under those conditions. That is much more worrying than the summary leads us to believe.
Well, from the fact that RMAs has worked for some people and not for others as well as the non-deterministic crashes it seems like it's down to production variation, some chips get unstable and corrupt data if hammered a particular way. Most likely there'll be some microcode update to stagger the problematic sequence and a new stepping increasing the safety margin to fix it properly. Still not good news for AMD, since those who can't easily verify their results will stay away until the scope of the problem is known.
Users get the latest apps, streamlined to remove any useful features, and also make it even easier for Google to plumb your juicy data and strengthen their behavior modification algorithms!
Huh? Instead of downloading a 1GB temp file that'll be freed after installing the update, it'll be written directly to the destination. It has nothing to do with features or versions or whatever... but hey, you could always sell your soul to Apple, not sure who else is left.
He says women prefer a better work/life balance, but attributes it to biology. There seem to be other reasons though, like the fact that they tend to do more of the unpaid labour (chores, child care etc.) and are judged more harshly for putting in long hours that neglect their families and friends.
And how much of that boils down to biology, is it external pressure to do most the child care or a biological instinct? Many women can talk equality and feminism all day but the vast, vast majority of moms will grab the role as caretaker with both hands and make dad take care of other things. Even when the wage gap is small or even inverted, it's almost always mom working part time or the one who can't work overtime. It's exceptionally rare for women to lose the daily custody in a divorce. Is it all just social construct?
Truth is, women got near equality in work life. But they're trying to put in that effort on top of the traditional gender role at home. I'm for equal pay for equal work. But equal means equal, the same experience in actual working years not away on maternity leave or working part time or leaving to collect at day care while the rest work all night long. If you don't like it, give up half the family life. Tell your man to go home to take care of the sick kids. Tell him he'll be working part time too. And no, he can't work overtime when the kids need him. Don't support equal pay for unequal work.
Data centers don't care about noise or heating like an oven, they have massive power supplies and massive cooling. At worst you'll replace one 4P server with one 2P server with 2x the cores. Or two 2P VM platforms with one 2P VM platform with the same number of cores. I very much doubt they'll ever feel it's too much processing power in one place.
Well, boosters create a lot of sideways forces on the main stage. It's been done as a cheap way to increase thrust for greater flexibility, but I imagine that with many boosters you're better off just building a bigger core stage so you get all the force behind it. That's why for example the ITS concept is one huge cylinder, if that's your regular launch size you don't use boosters.
So is this basically three of the regular ones strapped together or a different thing entirely?
Well that was the general idea, take your basic Falcon 9 and strap two more first stages on the side as boosters. Apparently it wasn't quite that easy, though I'm not sure why SpaceX has struggled so much with it. It seems to be the same principle like the Delta IV Heavy and several other existing rockets. One factor can be that SpaceX has been able to boost the F9 launch capacity enough to "steal" some payloads originally planned for FH, it's now more niche than initially planned. On the high-end the FH will offer a launch capacity that currently doesn't exist which means it's unclear what the market is. OTOH very few are going to start designing a super heavy payload unless they know there's a reasonably priced launch vehicle for it.
To be fair, I believe the launch delays began after the 06/15 CRS-7 crash.
The first non-committal estimate was in 2008:
By 2008, SpaceX were aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in 2009, and "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years."
By 2011:
In April 2011, Elon Musk was targeting a first launch of Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the West Coast in 2013.
It kept getting pushed back, then the CRS crash but initially only to April/May 2016:
By September 2015, impacted by the failure of SpaceX CRS-7 that June, SpaceX rescheduled the maiden Falcon Heavy flight for April/May 2016, but by February 2016 had moved that back again to late 2016. The flight was now to be launched from the refurbished Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A. In August 2016, the demonstration flight was moved to early 2017, then to Summer 2017, and finally to November 2017.
It's been "a couple years out" now for almost a decade and under a year since 2015. Musk's schedules should be taken with significant amounts of salt, he wants to move much faster than what they can manage in practice.
The problem we have is not that we can't go anywhere, or send another probe, or don't have the technology or know-how. It's that nobody wants to pay for it any more. You can't do much about that problem without finding someone willing to pay.
The planets only align for the "grand tour" gravity boost the Voyager probes got once every 175 years. And they contribute a lot more to slingshoting the probes out of the solar system than chemical rockets do. Unless we get a massive breakthrough in some other form of propulsion there's not much point in trying again until 2151. Not that we actually expect to find much of anything outside the heliosphere, Voyager 1 is 20 light minutes out and it should be pretty empty for the next 4.3 light years. Since the slingshot won't get much better than for Voyager we really need a different form of propulsion to go interstellar. Unless we can wait tens of thousands of years, but then technology might improve a bit in the meantime.
IMHO the biggest weakness of the current Internet is that every packet must contain the full source and destination. I'd like it to be more like a Russian doll-style, every node on the source side should only give a reference and the destination should be unwrapped layer by layer. So if I want to send a packet from 1.2.3.4 to 5.6.7.8 my node should send to 1.2.3.x and only relay to 1.2.x that "someone" from 1.2.3.x wants to contact 5.x with an ID, from 1.2.x it'll relay to 1.x that someone from 1.2.x wants to talk to 5.x, then 1.x will relay to 5.x that someone from 1.x wants to talk to a 5.x node, 5.x will decrypt and find 5.6.x, 5.6.x will decrypt and find 5.6.7.x, 5.6.7.x will decrypt and find 5.6.7.8. I'm sure there's a lot of complications involved, but it would make breaking a single link much less valuable.
Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece on the matter, where they even state that they "encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." (my emphasis)
You damn well better charge as much as you can, as the first copy you sell might be your last. Since everyone you sell it to can turn around and give it to everyone for free and you can't stop them. Heck, if Bruce Perens wins against grsecurity you can't even stop selling it to those who do. The FSF knows this right is a joke. The FSF doesn't care that it's a joke. Making money on the COTS model is wrong, as RMS has stated repeatedly. If you want to make money, the GPL doesn't restrict your ability to shoot yourself in the foot. You can sell it for as much as you like, as long as you're trying to sell sand in Sahara.
Not sure what you think "my view" is. But Swedish Americans, Danish Americans, Finnish Americans all have a 50% higher standard of living than respective Swedes, Danes, and Finns living in the Nordic countries.
Selection bias. No poor Swede, Dane or Finn would ever consider emigrating to the US. The US is a great country to be rich and a terrible country to be poor. To be honest, if the only measure of my life was making money I should probably emigrate too. But you know, it's my home. All the taxes I pay means it's a fairly nice place to live, there's not so many violent and desperate people as in the US. And if any American wants to brag about charity, maybe it's a bit de facto charity.
I have a few friends that have worked in the US, they went to lucrative jobs with big international companies. They wouldn't have gone otherwise. If they became unemployed, they never would have stayed. Social democracies don't work magic, the money we spend giving everyone a basic standard of living comes from redistributing wealth not some magic well. The highs don't get so high and the lows don't get so low. You don't go the US unless you're already a winner.
Too bad nobody has discovered a form that can contain both text and audiovisual information as alternatives, passive and interactive lessons, a database of questions and answers, hold quizes to ensure understanding and so on that can be copied thousands and millions of times at near zero marginal cost. That could make parameterized and randomized tests from huge sets of problems. That could make proper A/B testing to see what improves results/efficiency. Maybe it's not good for everything but I think 80% of my education from primary school to a master's degree could have been done in electronic form with enough effort. But that effort only has to be made once.
Debt is the flip side of savings, if I have more money than I need right now it's better off invested in someone else's business making money. That applies equally well on the country level. Of course the one putting themselves in debt should consider why and how much, but there is good and bad debt. It's not all bad.
Gaming is one of the classic examples of embarassingly parallel as shown by all those processing units in video cards.
Graphics, yes. Gaming? No. From what I've understood most games have divided threads by task, this thread does AI, this thread does rendering and so on. Which is why so many games still do well on dual cores, there's one core running the main loop and one running everything else. Not even Civilization VI, the kind of game that possibly could use lots of cores for the computer's AI manages to use 8 cores.
Intel has hardly ever had usable CPU upgrade on the same motherboard, generally they have kept compatibility for two consecutive generations. It's only like one year in between and has probably been for the OEMs' sake not the consumers. Maybe that's up to two years now that they've switched from tick-tock to process-architecture-optimization, but in any case the year-over-year improvements has been minimal so why? If you so desperately want to replace last year's Z270+CPU, sell them as a package deal and buy a new Z370+CPU combo. Though if you're doing it for the six-core, do yourself a favor and buy a Ryzen or if you must buy Intel then an X299. Doing it just for the two extra cores is stupid. Except for the fanbois who'll take any chance to trash talk the opposing team, is there anyone here who'll stand up and say they'll miss this upgrade path? I expect crickets...
Actually, my question is: why does an OS have to make that choice for people? Is it not possible to provide more than one video codec on mobile devices? I could perhaps see the point of Google choosing NOT to support a format in which you need pay royalties, but why would Apple NOT choose to support a free format in addition?
People have bad experience on the iPhone because of poor battery life because of a poorly supported codec so people buy less iPhones. So Apple says only these codecs, providers comply because they have to, users get a good experience, everybody happy? Not sure if it passes a reality check, but I'm pretty sure that's the line of reasoning.
Because you're stupid and wrong. Sorry, but that's the level you bring the debate down to when you say my way is the right way and why isn't everybody doing it like me. For example let's take your page navigation, the natural sequence of events is that I open a book, turn the pages, close the book. The "close" action is clearly after I've turned the pages and is the last action "beyond the end" so it should be on the right-most side. As for the second example, you're turning a natural sequence of a "yes or no" question to become a "no or yes" question. That is not a natural ordering in English and indeed most western languages.
Truth is, these things happen mostly by convention. It's not really important if they're left or right, it's that they're consistently left or right. And it's more important to be locally consistent, like everybody drives on the left or the right than to be universally consistent like all Fords drive on the right. Which is why when I use a Windows machine I expect every application to follow the Windows convention. If I use a Mac I expect them to follow the Mac convention. On Linux use whatever Gnome/KDE/Cinnamon etc. is configured to use. Those who refuse to follow convention because they know better should be taken out back and shot.
it shows "the financial sector" has it's priorities reversed if they seem to think "investing in production machines" is "burning cash"
It's an idiomatic use, like "He got his paycheck yesterday and already the cash is burning a hole in his pocket." indicating how willing the company is to use their cash reserve as opposed to sitting on it. They don't think anyone is going to set it on fire, literally or proverbially.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem I see with this is that it flips the responsibility over to the one who says the emperor has no clothes. While it is difficult to create truly anonymous data and it would be nice to stop large law-abiding companies from trying to break down any compartmentalization you've done, I fear the effect will be quite the opposite. Because now if you call anyone out on poor anonymization it must be because you've tried exactly what this law prohibits, so white hats will be silenced. The companies will get lazier, because it's cheaper. And the black hats will have a field day with it.
There's two alternatives here:
1) One or a few distribution companies manages to hit critical mass so everyone else "have to" be there. This is what happened with Spotify in the music business, who is now making a big squeeze play on the artists instead of the label.
2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.
I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.
Actually the US is up to 10th place in the 2017 Q1 figures. It's unevenly distributed though, the US is 37th in >4 Mbps adoption. Even Russia got you beat in 33rd place. And I think that's reflected in a lot of the discussions here, either you got competition and it's great or you don't and it's terrible. By the way, Akamai's figures are way below the national statistic on what people have. Here in Norway I see it reports the average connection as 23.5 Mbps. According to the national statistics the mean broadband connection is now 59.5 Mbps, the median 31.5 Mbps. Here 44% of the population is now on fiber and increasing rapidly, though the normal speed tier is still 100-150 Mbps. Gigabit is still very rare, even though it's available for quite many.
The man is a biologist are you honestly asserting there are no biological differences between men and women? That there are no mental differences?
There are certainly mental differences between men and women. Whether they're innate or cultural/social constructs is putting your hand in a wasp's nest, since it would be extremely hard to isolate boys and girls from all gender preconceptions from birth to adulthood. As a biologist he seems to have come down rather hard on the nature side in the nature vs nurture debate. The logical consequence is that there will be imbalance in the workplace and that Google is sub-optimizing by promoting equality where some groups are statistically better fit than others. At least he's going for the soft conclusion that some are less desirable rather than simply incapable.
His problem is that any actual biological differences have drowned in a sea of abuse where people have claimed a natural order of race, sex, caste etc. and exploiting minute differences in physical attributes or biased tests of intelligence to further those agendas, only to be proven false time and time again. So when the boy has cried wolf too many times, people will start to assume this is just yet another self-serving attempt to re-establish the patriarchy as the natural order of things, that men are born to lead and women to follow. Many people are now convinced there is no wolf and there never was a wolf, only faked signs of wolf and hence he's either a bigot, liar or a tool.
Which can be pretty frustrating for a biologist that is quite convinced that these differences are real and won't simply disappear by trying to raise children gender-neutral. People have tried and failed but there's always been plenty opportunity to blame society for that. Unlike many other forms of potential discrimination, it's very hard to find some place that doesn't have an attitude towards gender. You'd probably have to start somewhere like a nudist colony to even have a shot. And even they wouldn't exist in a vacuum. Because unless you got some smoking gun proof that it's truly biology, it will backfire that the traits he sees are the learned gender role used to cement the gender role.
Then 54% are ignorant about the operations of a modern commercial airliner.
Not really. On any ordinary day I expect the plane can take off, follow the flight path and land without any problems. It's the extraordinary days I worry about.
A pilot's primary responsibility is managing and executing the decision-making.
Which is why there's three big issues I see:
1. Loss of propulsion
2. Loss of communication
3. Loss of navigation
If the plane is losing power, how does it try to make an emergency landing? If it can't contact the tower, what will it do? If it doesn't know where it is, how does it locate a landing site? The first one is real hard, you must know a lot more than airports to land on the Hudson. What do you do if the last instruction from the tower was a holding pattern and you're running out of fuel? And if all other systems fail, can it navigate by visual orientation like a human?
Planes are the last place I want fully automated pilots because unlike an autonomous car or train or whatever simply hitting the emergency brakes and coming to a complete stop is not an option. Even if nothing is going right you need to pick the least bad option to try saving as many as possible, if you do nothing and just run out of run or ram into something it's pretty much a guaranteed death sentence.
I consider myself a gamer, but I WILL NOT burn through the power that a GTX 1080 consumes.
So you wouldn't buy a $500 graphics card because it'd cost you $5/year in electricity. Got it.
It is not like the CPU is testing for that particular combination of conditions alone and conditionally segfaulting. Really, there is a flaw in the CPU design which so far has only been demonstrated to exhibit itself under those conditions. That is much more worrying than the summary leads us to believe.
Well, from the fact that RMAs has worked for some people and not for others as well as the non-deterministic crashes it seems like it's down to production variation, some chips get unstable and corrupt data if hammered a particular way. Most likely there'll be some microcode update to stagger the problematic sequence and a new stepping increasing the safety margin to fix it properly. Still not good news for AMD, since those who can't easily verify their results will stay away until the scope of the problem is known.
Users get the latest apps, streamlined to remove any useful features, and also make it even easier for Google to plumb your juicy data and strengthen their behavior modification algorithms!
Huh? Instead of downloading a 1GB temp file that'll be freed after installing the update, it'll be written directly to the destination. It has nothing to do with features or versions or whatever... but hey, you could always sell your soul to Apple, not sure who else is left.
He says women prefer a better work/life balance, but attributes it to biology. There seem to be other reasons though, like the fact that they tend to do more of the unpaid labour (chores, child care etc.) and are judged more harshly for putting in long hours that neglect their families and friends.
And how much of that boils down to biology, is it external pressure to do most the child care or a biological instinct? Many women can talk equality and feminism all day but the vast, vast majority of moms will grab the role as caretaker with both hands and make dad take care of other things. Even when the wage gap is small or even inverted, it's almost always mom working part time or the one who can't work overtime. It's exceptionally rare for women to lose the daily custody in a divorce. Is it all just social construct?
Truth is, women got near equality in work life. But they're trying to put in that effort on top of the traditional gender role at home. I'm for equal pay for equal work. But equal means equal, the same experience in actual working years not away on maternity leave or working part time or leaving to collect at day care while the rest work all night long. If you don't like it, give up half the family life. Tell your man to go home to take care of the sick kids. Tell him he'll be working part time too. And no, he can't work overtime when the kids need him. Don't support equal pay for unequal work.
Data centers don't care about noise or heating like an oven, they have massive power supplies and massive cooling. At worst you'll replace one 4P server with one 2P server with 2x the cores. Or two 2P VM platforms with one 2P VM platform with the same number of cores. I very much doubt they'll ever feel it's too much processing power in one place.
Well, boosters create a lot of sideways forces on the main stage. It's been done as a cheap way to increase thrust for greater flexibility, but I imagine that with many boosters you're better off just building a bigger core stage so you get all the force behind it. That's why for example the ITS concept is one huge cylinder, if that's your regular launch size you don't use boosters.
So is this basically three of the regular ones strapped together or a different thing entirely?
Well that was the general idea, take your basic Falcon 9 and strap two more first stages on the side as boosters. Apparently it wasn't quite that easy, though I'm not sure why SpaceX has struggled so much with it. It seems to be the same principle like the Delta IV Heavy and several other existing rockets. One factor can be that SpaceX has been able to boost the F9 launch capacity enough to "steal" some payloads originally planned for FH, it's now more niche than initially planned. On the high-end the FH will offer a launch capacity that currently doesn't exist which means it's unclear what the market is. OTOH very few are going to start designing a super heavy payload unless they know there's a reasonably priced launch vehicle for it.
To be fair, I believe the launch delays began after the 06/15 CRS-7 crash.
The first non-committal estimate was in 2008:
By 2008, SpaceX were aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in 2009, and "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years."
By 2011:
In April 2011, Elon Musk was targeting a first launch of Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the West Coast in 2013.
It kept getting pushed back, then the CRS crash but initially only to April/May 2016:
By September 2015, impacted by the failure of SpaceX CRS-7 that June, SpaceX rescheduled the maiden Falcon Heavy flight for April/May 2016, but by February 2016 had moved that back again to late 2016. The flight was now to be launched from the refurbished Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A. In August 2016, the demonstration flight was moved to early 2017, then to Summer 2017, and finally to November 2017.
It's been "a couple years out" now for almost a decade and under a year since 2015. Musk's schedules should be taken with significant amounts of salt, he wants to move much faster than what they can manage in practice.
The problem we have is not that we can't go anywhere, or send another probe, or don't have the technology or know-how. It's that nobody wants to pay for it any more. You can't do much about that problem without finding someone willing to pay.
The planets only align for the "grand tour" gravity boost the Voyager probes got once every 175 years. And they contribute a lot more to slingshoting the probes out of the solar system than chemical rockets do. Unless we get a massive breakthrough in some other form of propulsion there's not much point in trying again until 2151. Not that we actually expect to find much of anything outside the heliosphere, Voyager 1 is 20 light minutes out and it should be pretty empty for the next 4.3 light years. Since the slingshot won't get much better than for Voyager we really need a different form of propulsion to go interstellar. Unless we can wait tens of thousands of years, but then technology might improve a bit in the meantime.
IMHO the biggest weakness of the current Internet is that every packet must contain the full source and destination. I'd like it to be more like a Russian doll-style, every node on the source side should only give a reference and the destination should be unwrapped layer by layer. So if I want to send a packet from 1.2.3.4 to 5.6.7.8 my node should send to 1.2.3.x and only relay to 1.2.x that "someone" from 1.2.3.x wants to contact 5.x with an ID, from 1.2.x it'll relay to 1.x that someone from 1.2.x wants to talk to 5.x, then 1.x will relay to 5.x that someone from 1.x wants to talk to a 5.x node, 5.x will decrypt and find 5.6.x, 5.6.x will decrypt and find 5.6.7.x, 5.6.7.x will decrypt and find 5.6.7.8. I'm sure there's a lot of complications involved, but it would make breaking a single link much less valuable.
Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece on the matter, where they even state that they "encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." (my emphasis)
You damn well better charge as much as you can, as the first copy you sell might be your last. Since everyone you sell it to can turn around and give it to everyone for free and you can't stop them. Heck, if Bruce Perens wins against grsecurity you can't even stop selling it to those who do. The FSF knows this right is a joke. The FSF doesn't care that it's a joke. Making money on the COTS model is wrong, as RMS has stated repeatedly. If you want to make money, the GPL doesn't restrict your ability to shoot yourself in the foot. You can sell it for as much as you like, as long as you're trying to sell sand in Sahara.
Not sure what you think "my view" is. But Swedish Americans, Danish Americans, Finnish Americans all have a 50% higher standard of living than respective Swedes, Danes, and Finns living in the Nordic countries.
Selection bias. No poor Swede, Dane or Finn would ever consider emigrating to the US. The US is a great country to be rich and a terrible country to be poor. To be honest, if the only measure of my life was making money I should probably emigrate too. But you know, it's my home. All the taxes I pay means it's a fairly nice place to live, there's not so many violent and desperate people as in the US. And if any American wants to brag about charity, maybe it's a bit de facto charity.
I have a few friends that have worked in the US, they went to lucrative jobs with big international companies. They wouldn't have gone otherwise. If they became unemployed, they never would have stayed. Social democracies don't work magic, the money we spend giving everyone a basic standard of living comes from redistributing wealth not some magic well. The highs don't get so high and the lows don't get so low. You don't go the US unless you're already a winner.
What if the facts and/or inferences are absurd like #pizzagate? Is the genuine belief enough to stave off a defamation lawsuit?
Too bad nobody has discovered a form that can contain both text and audiovisual information as alternatives, passive and interactive lessons, a database of questions and answers, hold quizes to ensure understanding and so on that can be copied thousands and millions of times at near zero marginal cost. That could make parameterized and randomized tests from huge sets of problems. That could make proper A/B testing to see what improves results/efficiency. Maybe it's not good for everything but I think 80% of my education from primary school to a master's degree could have been done in electronic form with enough effort. But that effort only has to be made once.
Debt is the flip side of savings, if I have more money than I need right now it's better off invested in someone else's business making money. That applies equally well on the country level. Of course the one putting themselves in debt should consider why and how much, but there is good and bad debt. It's not all bad.
Gaming is one of the classic examples of embarassingly parallel as shown by all those processing units in video cards.
Graphics, yes. Gaming? No. From what I've understood most games have divided threads by task, this thread does AI, this thread does rendering and so on. Which is why so many games still do well on dual cores, there's one core running the main loop and one running everything else. Not even Civilization VI, the kind of game that possibly could use lots of cores for the computer's AI manages to use 8 cores.
Intel has hardly ever had usable CPU upgrade on the same motherboard, generally they have kept compatibility for two consecutive generations. It's only like one year in between and has probably been for the OEMs' sake not the consumers. Maybe that's up to two years now that they've switched from tick-tock to process-architecture-optimization, but in any case the year-over-year improvements has been minimal so why? If you so desperately want to replace last year's Z270+CPU, sell them as a package deal and buy a new Z370+CPU combo. Though if you're doing it for the six-core, do yourself a favor and buy a Ryzen or if you must buy Intel then an X299. Doing it just for the two extra cores is stupid. Except for the fanbois who'll take any chance to trash talk the opposing team, is there anyone here who'll stand up and say they'll miss this upgrade path? I expect crickets...
Actually, my question is: why does an OS have to make that choice for people? Is it not possible to provide more than one video codec on mobile devices? I could perhaps see the point of Google choosing NOT to support a format in which you need pay royalties, but why would Apple NOT choose to support a free format in addition?
People have bad experience on the iPhone because of poor battery life because of a poorly supported codec so people buy less iPhones. So Apple says only these codecs, providers comply because they have to, users get a good experience, everybody happy? Not sure if it passes a reality check, but I'm pretty sure that's the line of reasoning.
Because you're stupid and wrong. Sorry, but that's the level you bring the debate down to when you say my way is the right way and why isn't everybody doing it like me. For example let's take your page navigation, the natural sequence of events is that I open a book, turn the pages, close the book. The "close" action is clearly after I've turned the pages and is the last action "beyond the end" so it should be on the right-most side. As for the second example, you're turning a natural sequence of a "yes or no" question to become a "no or yes" question. That is not a natural ordering in English and indeed most western languages.
Truth is, these things happen mostly by convention. It's not really important if they're left or right, it's that they're consistently left or right. And it's more important to be locally consistent, like everybody drives on the left or the right than to be universally consistent like all Fords drive on the right. Which is why when I use a Windows machine I expect every application to follow the Windows convention. If I use a Mac I expect them to follow the Mac convention. On Linux use whatever Gnome/KDE/Cinnamon etc. is configured to use. Those who refuse to follow convention because they know better should be taken out back and shot.
it shows "the financial sector" has it's priorities reversed if they seem to think "investing in production machines" is "burning cash"
It's an idiomatic use, like "He got his paycheck yesterday and already the cash is burning a hole in his pocket." indicating how willing the company is to use their cash reserve as opposed to sitting on it. They don't think anyone is going to set it on fire, literally or proverbially.