One very important function of a newspaper for a civilization is to record what happened.
Again: "record" it.
Not: delete some aspect of the past when you find it inconvenient.
Example: Vanity Fair did an interview with Asma Bashar, wife of the Syrian president for life, calling her a rose in the desert. Now that the US and UK want Bashar out, the article is nowhere to be found.
It's hard to delete an article when it's printed on a newspaper and held in multiple (or even one) libraries.
Whether you're on the conservative or liberal divide of things, that is a very important function.
Calling a gallery "random images" is Wikipedian POV. I.e., from the Wikiblurb: "This section looks like an image gallery. Wikipedia policy discourages galleries of random images of the article subject"
However, from the POV of normal people, they are not random images. They are representative images.
And very useful at that.
images are used to illustrate/support the article
Why should that be? Who made up that rule? People (nomal people) come to Wikipedia to get information on a subject. From that user's perspective, they have no particular preference to only read an article, and only view images that support the article. I mean, as a user, why would you avoid looking at city images? Because they "violate Wikipedia policy"? Why do you, as a normal user, care about Wikipedia policy. You only care about getting to know about a subject.
And a a few simple pictures of a city landscape can convey much more than a lot of text describing the same. The Wikipedian way would require bloating up the articles with textual descriptions just so that some Wikibureaucrat can claim that, yes, the photos do indeed support the text.
Again, I'm only conveying the POV and interests of real users, as opposed to <del>EU directives</del> Wikipedia policy.
That may make sense to you, it surely makes senses to the overlords of Wikipedia, it sort makes sense to me, but it makes no sense whatsoever to the users of Wikipedia, you know "normal people".
Moreover, the function of the gallery would be to have a representative sampling of the images related to a topic (without necessarily being tied to the text). The commons is every single image relating to a topic, which for a large city could be huge.
Finally, I see that there's a wikiblurb "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Augsburg". But that doesn't mean anything to non-Wikigeeks.
That (needing to be an FDIC bank to get money) is for the public, by-the-rules process.
In the other process (handled inside closed doors), they give money to whoever they want to. I mean, are the European banks "regulated by the FDIC"? Or the Arab Banking Corp, owned in part by Libya?
I wonder if the markup generated by the tool would be so bad that bad markup would drive out good. I.e., the markup would be so bad that people wouldn't want to wade through it manually anymore.
More generally, regarding wikis that you use privately, am I the only one who thinks that wiki markup is not really that intuitive or easy? I wrote a manual once in DocBook (an SGML format), and I found that easier than some of the wiki markup which you have to lookup and check before using it.
Well, the source is actually not ZDNet, but rather an article on WND, which is as reliable as Socialist Workers newspapers are (meaning it's quite eager to publish stuff agreeing with its worldview).
Agreed that the default font is too small to comfortably read. Do people actually read at that small a size? Pixel density isn't high enough to accomodate that. I usually Ctrl++ 4 times to get a good size.
Anyway, be thankful that you can increase the size. The nutty "Facebook Comments" you see on a lot of sites these days don't even let you increase the text size. They want to be cool and small, whatever. What's the reasoning behind preventing Ctrl++ ?
Yeah, I'm with you on that: the weird configs. Much more complicated than it was back in the day.
I think Thunderbird does it right: you just enter your email address and username/password and it tries to figure out the rest by guessing common server names (mail.blah.com) and protocols/ports. Mostly, it succeeds.
Compare that to Evolution. I would have thought they would have a nice wizard like Thunderbird, but no, you have specify the exact incantation and even ports!
Haha. Whoever said that the economic interests of the copyright cartel were the same as that of either:
1) the US government (I'm not talking about the Obama or Bush campaigns when they inhabit the White House). The copyright cartel is pushing the US into forcing other governments to do stuff they don't want to do, leading to blowback, leading to anti-Americanism. Hollywood films already routinely make more abroad than domestically, and it'll only increase as the world gets richer. What's the problem?
2) the United States (i.e., the States, united). State and local governments are the ones who have the most to gain from a freer copyright regime. They're usually strapped for money.
3) people (RIAA lawyers are not counted among these). IP is strangulating innovation and increasing prices. What's the upside? Avatar wouldn't have been made if copyright expired before James Cameron's death?
It'll be some guy you got off of Craigs List that you paid in cash and who doesn't remember your face, and you told him you were "with the convention" and he believed you.
If you can organize it, you have the chance of much more probable hits (wide coverage--the USB drives get in to the hands possibly everybody at the company or everybody important).
But beyond that: there's one big deficiency of current X applications--if the X server dies, so do all graphical programs.
That's quite surprising when you think about it.
After all the graphical programs are X clients. Why would a client up and die just because some server died?
Does your browser die when a webserver dies?
And please, no pretending that X on Linux doesn't crash. It does, and this is the 4th time I've restarted this laptop today. Hanging hard with VirtualBox.
To sum: If the graphics server crashes, I'd like to see it automatically restart with Upstart, and then the clients automatically reconnect.
Come on, man, you know perfectly well why the story was posted: because it's going to get upwards of 200 comments and a whole lot of pageviews because we're all morbidly interested in the nextgen filesystem developer turned murderer.
Now, what you really meant to say is: Fellow geeks, we ought not to take interest in this story.
Most any distribution will automount anything you plug in. You never get the chance to run your mount command.
You're talking about what you would do. Everybody else is talking about what the average person would do.
By the way, what are you running--a server distro?
Even if we limit ourselves to a Linux shop (say one of the ones which have been covered by Slashdot, Munich city government or whatever), the average user does not have USB autodetection turned off. How else do their USB keyboards work?
Slashdot Mirror
One very important function of a newspaper for a civilization is to record what happened.
Again: "record" it.
Not: delete some aspect of the past when you find it inconvenient.
Example: Vanity Fair did an interview with Asma Bashar, wife of the Syrian president for life, calling her a rose in the desert. Now that the US and UK want Bashar out, the article is nowhere to be found.
It's hard to delete an article when it's printed on a newspaper and held in multiple (or even one) libraries.
Whether you're on the conservative or liberal divide of things, that is a very important function.
Does that mean "what's happening in this group of 5 houses in this cul-de-sac"?
Seems either pointless, boring, or hyper-gossipy.
Re: that-
Calling a gallery "random images" is Wikipedian POV. I.e., from the Wikiblurb: "This section looks like an image gallery. Wikipedia policy discourages galleries of random images of the article subject"
However, from the POV of normal people, they are not random images. They are representative images.
And very useful at that.
Why should that be? Who made up that rule? People (nomal people) come to Wikipedia to get information on a subject. From that user's perspective, they have no particular preference to only read an article, and only view images that support the article. I mean, as a user, why would you avoid looking at city images? Because they "violate Wikipedia policy"? Why do you, as a normal user, care about Wikipedia policy. You only care about getting to know about a subject.
And a a few simple pictures of a city landscape can convey much more than a lot of text describing the same. The Wikipedian way would require bloating up the articles with textual descriptions just so that some Wikibureaucrat can claim that, yes, the photos do indeed support the text.
Again, I'm only conveying the POV and interests of real users, as opposed to <del>EU directives</del> Wikipedia policy.
That may make sense to you, it surely makes senses to the overlords of Wikipedia, it sort makes sense to me, but it makes no sense whatsoever to the users of Wikipedia, you know "normal people".
Moreover, the function of the gallery would be to have a representative sampling of the images related to a topic (without necessarily being tied to the text). The commons is every single image relating to a topic, which for a large city could be huge.
Finally, I see that there's a wikiblurb "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Augsburg". But that doesn't mean anything to non-Wikigeeks.
I think you're looking for the Koch-funded reason.com, right?
Anyway, the reason they are suing is not a business deal gone bad (like investing in a PC company, and the market moves toward smartphones).
The reason is failure to do even the minimum of due diligence.
I agree they would not and should not have a case if it were just a matter of the vicissitudes of the market.
That (needing to be an FDIC bank to get money) is for the public, by-the-rules process.
In the other process (handled inside closed doors), they give money to whoever they want to. I mean, are the European banks "regulated by the FDIC"? Or the Arab Banking Corp, owned in part by Libya?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/libya-owned-arab-banking-corp-drew-at-least-5-billion-from-fed-in-crisis.html
I wonder if the markup generated by the tool would be so bad that bad markup would drive out good. I.e., the markup would be so bad that people wouldn't want to wade through it manually anymore.
More generally, regarding wikis that you use privately, am I the only one who thinks that wiki markup is not really that intuitive or easy? I wrote a manual once in DocBook (an SGML format), and I found that easier than some of the wiki markup which you have to lookup and check before using it.
Well, the source is actually not ZDNet, but rather an article on WND, which is as reliable as Socialist Workers newspapers are (meaning it's quite eager to publish stuff agreeing with its worldview).
Not to mention my pet peeve: "This looks like a gallery. Wikipedia discourages collections of random images".
!@#?
If I'm looking up, say, a foreign city, I want collections of random images. It gives feel for the city. It's not like they don't have captions.
Does every image have to be inline with a 5-sentence paragraph (intro, 3 bullet points, and a close)?
Doesn't Wikipedia have a little toolbar like most wikis where you click on h3 and it ouputs
===Enter text here===
?
If so, what's the problem?
If not, that would be nice.
I don't think Wsyiwig would quite work because Wikipedia has a lot of semantic markup (like the dreaded Citation Required).
So, from my perspective Wysiwyg would be a disaster, but a markup helper would be useful.
Agreed that the default font is too small to comfortably read. Do people actually read at that small a size? Pixel density isn't high enough to accomodate that. I usually Ctrl++ 4 times to get a good size.
Anyway, be thankful that you can increase the size. The nutty "Facebook Comments" you see on a lot of sites these days don't even let you increase the text size. They want to be cool and small, whatever. What's the reasoning behind preventing Ctrl++ ?
OK. Now, is it easier to type Heading or
======Heading=====
(oh, is that 5 or 6 equals signs?)
Yeah, I'm with you on that: the weird configs. Much more complicated than it was back in the day.
I think Thunderbird does it right: you just enter your email address and username/password and it tries to figure out the rest by guessing common server names (mail.blah.com) and protocols/ports. Mostly, it succeeds.
Compare that to Evolution. I would have thought they would have a nice wizard like Thunderbird, but no, you have specify the exact incantation and even ports!
If you want be her friend, you can't be mine!
Just wondering: did they want a scan of the back of the card too (CVV)? Shady.
The whole point of Paypal was you don't have to give your cc number to the vendor; it'll stay with Paypal.
But people found out Paypal's not necessarily always your pal.
Anyway, if these banks are offering this service, would there remain a reason for Paypal?
Haha. Whoever said that the economic interests of the copyright cartel were the same as that of either:
1) the US government (I'm not talking about the Obama or Bush campaigns when they inhabit the White House). The copyright cartel is pushing the US into forcing other governments to do stuff they don't want to do, leading to blowback, leading to anti-Americanism. Hollywood films already routinely make more abroad than domestically, and it'll only increase as the world gets richer. What's the problem?
2) the United States (i.e., the States, united). State and local governments are the ones who have the most to gain from a freer copyright regime. They're usually strapped for money.
3) people (RIAA lawyers are not counted among these). IP is strangulating innovation and increasing prices. What's the upside? Avatar wouldn't have been made if copyright expired before James Cameron's death?
Right on the security cameras.
But it won't be you.
It'll be some guy you got off of Craigs List that you paid in cash and who doesn't remember your face, and you told him you were "with the convention" and he believed you.
If you can organize it, you have the chance of much more probable hits (wide coverage--the USB drives get in to the hands possibly everybody at the company or everybody important).
What should desktop Linux users do to avoid the malware from the article?
I haven't tried the exploit, but again:
On my machine, all the important stuff is in the /home directory.
There's nothing really interesting in the "system". I don't even really care about the system. It's just an ISO download away from reinstall.
My files, on the other hand, are what's important.
That would be sad.
But beyond that: there's one big deficiency of current X applications--if the X server dies, so do all graphical programs.
That's quite surprising when you think about it.
After all the graphical programs are X clients. Why would a client up and die just because some server died?
Does your browser die when a webserver dies?
And please, no pretending that X on Linux doesn't crash. It does, and this is the 4th time I've restarted this laptop today. Hanging hard with VirtualBox.
To sum: If the graphics server crashes, I'd like to see it automatically restart with Upstart, and then the clients automatically reconnect.
Come on, man, you know perfectly well why the story was posted: because it's going to get upwards of 200 comments and a whole lot of pageviews because we're all morbidly interested in the nextgen filesystem developer turned murderer.
Now, what you really meant to say is: Fellow geeks, we ought not to take interest in this story.
>mount -o noexec /dev/usb /media/usb_stick
How many people are going to do that?
Most any distribution will automount anything you plug in. You never get the chance to run your mount command.
You're talking about what you would do. Everybody else is talking about what the average person would do.
By the way, what are you running--a server distro?
Even if we limit ourselves to a Linux shop (say one of the ones which have been covered by Slashdot, Munich city government or whatever), the average user does not have USB autodetection turned off. How else do their USB keyboards work?
Get someone to hand out the drives for you, for $100 for two hours work.
People coming into the event think that he/she is associated with the event.
Afterwards, no one knows who it was who was passing out drives.
(It's the old "look like you belong" trick. Put on a service uniform--janitor, phone tech, whatever--and no one will stop you.)
This. Kingston DataTraveller used to have this, but the new ones don't.