Only free software (software the user is free to run, inspect, share, and modify) can be assessed for security, fixed or improved, shared (even commercially), and run at any time for any reason. Without software freedom you're not being treated ethically and you deserve full control over your computers.
Nonfree software is never trustworthy, no matter how long you've run it, how much you're used to its interface, or how much you feel like you can trust it. You have no idea what nonfree software is doing when it runs, you have no permission to alter it, share it, or inspect it no matter how technical and willing you are to do these things. You might not even have permission to run it anytime you want for any reason.
So there is no way to secure Windows 10 so long as Windows 10 is nonfree software. The same applies to any other nonfree software too. No amount of public relations changes how computers and software work.
There are so many counter examples to this claim, but why bother. A cult is a cult. All Hail the True Scotsman.
Sleep is one of my favorite things to do. My wife thinks I'm crazy because I always insist on a very expensive mattress and sheets and stuff. Duvet covers, shit like that. But man, when I hit the rack at night, I sleep like a little baby boy. Still wake up with a boner, even at my advanced age.
Seriously, listen up you younger Slashdotters: Do not neglect your sleep. Sleep long enough to get dreams, because dreams, even nightmares, are really good for you. In fact, I've noticed that when I have one of those nightmares where you jump straight off the bed gasping, I go on to have a really good day. I don't know about the science of all that, but you want dreams. Unfortunately, the dreams you want seem to come at the end of your sleep, but you have to have had a long enough uninterrupted sleep.
Go to bed a little early tonight and enjoy.
As someone that has a hard time sleeping more than 6 hours, I can attest this to be true.
Most of us in this industry get by with 6 or 5 (sometimes less) hours of sleep a day. It is a shitty way to do things.
I'm always at my sharpest when I sleep more than 6 hours for several days in a row. I can get by when I only sleep 6 hours most days, but I can see, I can almost measure the deleterious effect it has in one's cognitive performance.
Bottom line: on income of about $64 billion, Apple paid about $16 billion in taxes. So even a company as rich as Apple is not paying the 35% rate that keeps being quoted by Congress, yet we need to lower the rate to 20%.
Thank you. Someone finally gets it. That the richer one is the less taxes one effectively pays (while at the same time having purchasing power over how laws are enacted), that shit is truly a "taxation without representation" for the rest of us, people or companies, that make $500K a year or less.
Paying taxes is the price that we have to pay for the right of living in a civilized society. Oliver Wendell Holmes.
That still doesn't make paying taxes have anything to do with morality.
It is a legal obligation, nothing more.
Them taxes pay for everything that makes your modern life (or conducting business) possible.
So it is somewhat of a moral obligation to pay for shit we use directly or indirectly. And it is also a legal obligation because there are quite a few yokes who would not fulfill this moral obligation on their own free will.
That taxes are used wisely or not in rendering public services, that's a different topic altogether, though.
If you can do that without deleterious consequences, then your work is trivial and/or not overtly complex.
Otherwise, such a thing is insane, specially if you work in developing actual products (shrink-wrapped software or software bundled in hardware), or complex services. ) And let us not even mention software related to avionics, weapons or medical devices (where QA is done by a separate organization to remove bias.)
The primary concern is always bias, bias that come from first-hand knowledge of a thing (or assumptions about a thing.)
It is a lot easier and effective to have a 3rd party dedicated to methodical black box and end-to-end integration/UA testing than to get a developer to test his own creation to the breaking point.
There is a reason why organization hire external teams to perform penetration testing of their infrastructure. He who knows nothing of the internals a-priori is the perfect person to black-box test the shit out of something with nothing but specs.
How many of those 'mistakes' make national news? Mistakes are made all the time. Mistakes don't get the attention of regulatory bodies and nations.
It's not just the visibility of the mistakes, but the nature of them and the cost associated to them. There are mistakes made all the time and organizations remediate them when they have processes that attempt to do "the right thing".
It's when mistakes are hidden on purpose, or worse, when falsehoods are propagated as truths, then those are no longer mistakes, but acts of wrong doings. Philosophically, I guess we can call them "mistakes", but it is one thing for an honest (albeit careless) regression to get past Q&A. It is quite another to commit sabotage and plant false data to circumvent the law.
I keep a LinkedIn as a continual up-to-date resume and portfolio that I mirror on a small page as my career page. Like any sleezy business, I treat my skill sets and work as a continually developing product for market no matter what job I'm at (obviously if you have NDAs or secretive work/tight lipped IP work, you have to take a slightly differnet approach).
I'm always ready to jump to the best offer. If you continually keep an online evolving resume/showcase, then your employer never knows if you are or are not really looking, you're simply someone who likes to share.
Bingo. That's how it is being done. And in reality, people who care about their careers simply do things,contribute, thinker and network. The outcome of that is an active online presence (typically anchored around linkedin, github, & stackoverflow, with offshots into twitter, quora, Amazon book reviews, etc.)
If you are looking for a job, you are probably using LinkedIn.
But how actively, though? I sure get a lots of calls and leads from LinkedIn, but my activity is pretty much passive, hardly enough for any data mining process to lead to a conclusion of my activities.
I mean, who uses linkedin actively? Or stackoverflow.com/jobs? Both of which give you automated job reports? Or dice or glassdoor being used anonymously?
Or how about contributions to github, forking, etc? Many people do that as a way to provide a portfolio for prospective head hunters.
I can see Keeper or Skill Mapper using these tools to identify employees at risk of being solicited for jumping ship. Perhaps then employers can compensate these employees enough to eliminate the threat of talent leaving for better pastures.
And that's where the hot leads, the "rock starts" (I hate that term) are, as passive leads. Those are the ones head hunters want to grab and employers want to retain.
We May Not Have Enough Minerals To Even Meet Electric Car Demand
Putting extraction costs aside, this is physically impossible. I mean, sweet Jesus, we are sitting on a planet with a fuckton of elements and ores. We already recycle a number of materials, countries are already exploring mineral extraction from sea beds, etc.
No, he's recognized that "a finite and insignificant perturbation in the infinity of existence" is simple hand waving nonsense, and doesn't say or answer anything.
That's what I was thinking. There is the fact that we cannot see beyond the currently observable universe because there hasn't been enough time for information to reach to us..
If the observable universe is just a a finite perturbation of an infinitely eternal universe, then the universe as a whole is infinitely void beyond the observable universe (and nothing will reach to us from the beyond.)
Either that, or we have to assume that some sort of cosmic event snuff out the shit out light and matter creating a big void wherein the observable universe (a minuscule volume of this void) resides, and which is why we cannot discern crap from beyond the observable.
It is an exotic idea that is not falsifiable, me thinks.
How much is "Islamic" and how much is stolen from cultures that they have destroyed? For example "islamic" arches can clearly be seen in pre-islamic Persia. You will fins that most things that Muslims claim to have invented turn out to be "we destroyed this library but copied this bit"
We can say the same with almost every other culture. What's the point here?
So where are the other old guys? I can't imagine they've all moved up the chain into management.
I am close to my 50's, and I don't see myself changing. I have a couple of examples I am hell bent to imitate.
Two years ago I met with ex-coworkers at Hooters to say goodbye to one of our colleagues who was finally retiring. Good old low-level embedded development guy finally retiring in his 70's, making 6-figures since who knows. A few months ago, one of my colleagues finally retired in his 80s (yeah, fucking 80s). He's been an Oracle expert whose experience (and personality obviously) is sorely missed.
You go where you will. You define your own fate. I've seen people going up to management, then to establish their own development firms, then go to architecture jobs, then back to development in specialized domains, then back to management of software development, and so on.
People with an itch go with the flow. They adapt and change roles. They learn and accrue significant expertise. They specialize in something, then they move to something else.
No one stays just doing "coding".
I mean, who does? You don't even have to reach your 50's. Who does just "coding" after 10-15 years. The world of software is immense, even if one stays within a single niche (say, JEE or embedded work or what have you.) Technologies change the carpet under you and you change or you sink.
Rinse and repeat for years, decades, and all of the sudden, you have a fruitful and fulfilling life as a "software guys" well into your 70's.
It's a matter of mental versatility, agency and will. Do what you like, be good at it and fight for the salary and job balances that you want.
Generally speaking, as a software developer (I'm currently working on a cross-platform game), I try to leave my development systems as close to stock as possible on the platforms my customers are likely to be using. That means I use Windows 10, macOS 10.12 (Sierra), and Ubuntu (16.04 LTS) w/ the default Unity desktop. I'll probably create a new Unity partition for 17.xx soon, and I'll certainly be leaving it with the stock desktop. This gives me the greatest chance of reproducing application bugs on these systems, and it also helps keep my development machines as stable as possible.
Whenever Windows 8 apologists said something like "stop complaining, you can just install xxx plugin to get your start menu back", they were completely missing the point. You shouldn't HAVE to customize your OS to get it to a practical, working state. Moreso, my experience is that every sort of major modification you make to your system simply increases the likelihood of introducing stability issues, causing strange application bugs, and all other sorts of headaches. Now, each time you ask for advice from someone, you have to explain "I'm not running the default environment", and the likelihood of getting problems resolved decreases.
So, complaints about a default desktop environment aren't necessarily lazy or trolling, even if there are workarounds. There really shouldn't be any excuse for a user to experience a sub-optimal desktop environment these days, especially in one of the world's most popular Linux distros.
I totally agree with this. I work in multi-platform turn-key/COTS systems and variations of these kinds are a pita. Not only for development but for automated regression builds. We have to have sufficient permutations reflecting system changes to get some level of confidence. Worst migration we had was to adapt our systems to work on RH6 and RH7.
And that's on headless systems. Desktop changes are a PITA. Shit stops working all of the sudden because your system depends on A which depends on B which depends on C to behave a certain way (which no longer does.) Heisenbugs and Mandelbugs galore.
Good news, you don't have to use Gnome. A cool thing about Linux is that you can install a whole different desktop environment very easily.
I've been using Linux for decades but this attitude always puzzles me. Most folk don't have the skill, time or energy to integrate the applications they want with a different flavour of desktop. In the mainstream, you take the desktop you're offered with the applications which are integrated for that distro. FWIW, I switched to Mint to avoid Unity.
That's why I don't even bother anymore with Linux "desktop". I use it exclusively for server side stuff. Every damned linux distro has its own way of doing things and their own GUIs for administering a system (I don't even bother using them, command line purity, baby.)
For desktop, Windows or Mac. Change code, do limited compilation or testing. Push code to git or whatever. Ssh to linux server. Pull code down. Run full build, etc. Happy? Push to integration branch and let CI builds have it.
And that's for work. Let us not talk about media consumption. Linux lost that battle a long time ago.
Fucking A. And with increasing improvement in battery technology, they (and hopefully we at some point) will be reducing how much nat or syn gas gets burned for energy.
Who said anything about harmful? How about annoying? Infuriating? Laws like this reduce violence.
^^^ Logical fallacy by appealing to extremes. Someone needs a lesson in self control and in how to behave in a society full of imperfect individuals.
If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.
Not according to the law or plain old common sense. I mean seriously, this is one tortuously built self-serving argument you have going on there buddy.
This is the will of the people - not nannying. Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.
Until you have a way to legislate against people reeking of perfume or bad body odors for refusal to use deodorant or crass enough to throw a silent but deadly fart at a crowded restaurant, your personal argument sounds like a incredibly subjective NIMBY rant.
Vaping in crowded spaces annoy me, but you must show me that there are sufficiently negative side effects of that shit in the air for me to come down with pitchforks.
Will of the people my ass. We are talking about "feelings" not facts. Sure, in a democracy, the will of the people will eventually become law, but that does not make it right or ethical. After all, there was a time when the will of the people denied women the right to vote.
Stop throwing around with subjective, self-serving "will of the people" slogans and try to build your arguments with logic and ethics for once.
There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, people scratching themselves in private places, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food,...
Erm, no.
If I scratch my nuts next to you, it doesn't affect you. Any issues you have with that are your problem. If someone starts smoking next to me, it DEFINITELY affects me. I'm an ex smoker, after 15 years of not smoking, if someone sparks up in a well ventilated room I will smell it within a minute. Yes smokers, its that bad. Now tell me that if someone has an itchy ball sack, you'll be able to tell if they've scratched it without seeing it.
Now remember that anti-smoking laws ended up this way not because of health reasons, but because smokers were so annoying and intractable, if politely requested to take their habit elsewhere, they'd stamp their feet like an impudent child shouting "Its my right, my right, my right, my right, my right". So we took said rights away and they have no-one to blame but themselves.
Sadly the same thing is happening with vapers. I think vaping is good as it's helped several of my friends and family members kick the habit and it looks like its for good this time but there are a large subset of vapers who have no idea of common courtesy and so we're ending up with the same problems as smokers for the same reasons. There's a reason the vape pipe is now colloquially known as a "douche flute".
And we took away that right once we had scientific evidence against second hand smoking. The laws were firmly passed (in whatever nature they have) because of that as their cause, not on mass intransigence.
I want to see evidence that e-cigs and vaping are as bad as smoking (from a second-hand perspective.) By the logic inspiring these bans, I pretty much have grounds to demand restaurants not to allow people in who reek of perfume or body odors because of my real problems with my sinus.
It is obvious (at least to me) that such a proposition from me would be absurd.
It's annoying. A smoking friend of mine always vapes inside, because it's supposed to be ok. However, it's really annoying when the whole room is filled with a white fog that smells like bourbon (or vanilla or caramel or apple or whatever smell he chooses).
Not at all different from having people near you bathed in perfume or bad body odors for lack of proper hygiene.
I can get banning of actual cigarettes, for we knew quite well (with quantifiable data) about the negative side effects of second hand smoking.
But e-cigarretes? Vaping? Where is the data?
Are we banning something as a precautionary measure without knowing what the hell we are measuring? Or is it simply because we do not want to offend people?
Unless I am committing a "fallacy of the excluded middle" in the way I'm describing what I am seeing, I have a significant problem with either question.
but only 1% (or some shit like that) are experienced at OS or compiler development. News at 11 (btw, 80% of all statistics are made up, including this one, turtles all the way down.)
Slashdot Mirror
Only free software (software the user is free to run, inspect, share, and modify) can be assessed for security, fixed or improved, shared (even commercially), and run at any time for any reason. Without software freedom you're not being treated ethically and you deserve full control over your computers.
Nonfree software is never trustworthy, no matter how long you've run it, how much you're used to its interface, or how much you feel like you can trust it. You have no idea what nonfree software is doing when it runs, you have no permission to alter it, share it, or inspect it no matter how technical and willing you are to do these things. You might not even have permission to run it anytime you want for any reason.
So there is no way to secure Windows 10 so long as Windows 10 is nonfree software. The same applies to any other nonfree software too. No amount of public relations changes how computers and software work.
There are so many counter examples to this claim, but why bother. A cult is a cult. All Hail the True Scotsman.
Sleep is one of my favorite things to do. My wife thinks I'm crazy because I always insist on a very expensive mattress and sheets and stuff. Duvet covers, shit like that. But man, when I hit the rack at night, I sleep like a little baby boy. Still wake up with a boner, even at my advanced age.
Seriously, listen up you younger Slashdotters: Do not neglect your sleep. Sleep long enough to get dreams, because dreams, even nightmares, are really good for you. In fact, I've noticed that when I have one of those nightmares where you jump straight off the bed gasping, I go on to have a really good day. I don't know about the science of all that, but you want dreams. Unfortunately, the dreams you want seem to come at the end of your sleep, but you have to have had a long enough uninterrupted sleep.
Go to bed a little early tonight and enjoy.
As someone that has a hard time sleeping more than 6 hours, I can attest this to be true.
Most of us in this industry get by with 6 or 5 (sometimes less) hours of sleep a day. It is a shitty way to do things.
I'm always at my sharpest when I sleep more than 6 hours for several days in a row. I can get by when I only sleep 6 hours most days, but I can see, I can almost measure the deleterious effect it has in one's cognitive performance.
With all the discussion of taxes lately, I looked up Apple's US income taxes, see http://investor.apple.com/fina...
Bottom line: on income of about $64 billion, Apple paid about $16 billion in taxes. So even a company as rich as Apple is not paying the 35% rate that keeps being quoted by Congress, yet we need to lower the rate to 20%.
Thank you. Someone finally gets it. That the richer one is the less taxes one effectively pays (while at the same time having purchasing power over how laws are enacted), that shit is truly a "taxation without representation" for the rest of us, people or companies, that make $500K a year or less.
That still doesn't make paying taxes have anything to do with morality.
It is a legal obligation, nothing more.
Them taxes pay for everything that makes your modern life (or conducting business) possible.
So it is somewhat of a moral obligation to pay for shit we use directly or indirectly. And it is also a legal obligation because there are quite a few yokes who would not fulfill this moral obligation on their own free will.
That taxes are used wisely or not in rendering public services, that's a different topic altogether, though.
Should Developers Do All Their Own QA?
If you can do that without deleterious consequences, then your work is trivial and/or not overtly complex.
Otherwise, such a thing is insane, specially if you work in developing actual products (shrink-wrapped software or software bundled in hardware), or complex services. ) And let us not even mention software related to avionics, weapons or medical devices (where QA is done by a separate organization to remove bias.)
The primary concern is always bias, bias that come from first-hand knowledge of a thing (or assumptions about a thing.)
It is a lot easier and effective to have a 3rd party dedicated to methodical black box and end-to-end integration/UA testing than to get a developer to test his own creation to the breaking point.
There is a reason why organization hire external teams to perform penetration testing of their infrastructure. He who knows nothing of the internals a-priori is the perfect person to black-box test the shit out of something with nothing but specs.
How many of those 'mistakes' make national news? Mistakes are made all the time. Mistakes don't get the attention of regulatory bodies and nations.
It's not just the visibility of the mistakes, but the nature of them and the cost associated to them. There are mistakes made all the time and organizations remediate them when they have processes that attempt to do "the right thing".
It's when mistakes are hidden on purpose, or worse, when falsehoods are propagated as truths, then those are no longer mistakes, but acts of wrong doings. Philosophically, I guess we can call them "mistakes", but it is one thing for an honest (albeit careless) regression to get past Q&A. It is quite another to commit sabotage and plant false data to circumvent the law.
When truth is determined by a simple majority, conspiracies become more appealing.
Unrelated to the topic under discussion, I'm gonna steal this as my sig.
I keep a LinkedIn as a continual up-to-date resume and portfolio that I mirror on a small page as my career page. Like any sleezy business, I treat my skill sets and work as a continually developing product for market no matter what job I'm at (obviously if you have NDAs or secretive work/tight lipped IP work, you have to take a slightly differnet approach).
I'm always ready to jump to the best offer. If you continually keep an online evolving resume/showcase, then your employer never knows if you are or are not really looking, you're simply someone who likes to share.
Bingo. That's how it is being done. And in reality, people who care about their careers simply do things,contribute, thinker and network. The outcome of that is an active online presence (typically anchored around linkedin, github, & stackoverflow, with offshots into twitter, quora, Amazon book reviews, etc.)
If you are looking for a job, you are probably using LinkedIn.
But how actively, though? I sure get a lots of calls and leads from LinkedIn, but my activity is pretty much passive, hardly enough for any data mining process to lead to a conclusion of my activities.
I mean, who uses linkedin actively? Or stackoverflow.com/jobs? Both of which give you automated job reports? Or dice or glassdoor being used anonymously?
Or how about contributions to github, forking, etc? Many people do that as a way to provide a portfolio for prospective head hunters.
I can see Keeper or Skill Mapper using these tools to identify employees at risk of being solicited for jumping ship. Perhaps then employers can compensate these employees enough to eliminate the threat of talent leaving for better pastures.
And that's where the hot leads, the "rock starts" (I hate that term) are, as passive leads. Those are the ones head hunters want to grab and employers want to retain.
We May Not Have Enough Minerals To Even Meet Electric Car Demand
Putting extraction costs aside, this is physically impossible. I mean, sweet Jesus, we are sitting on a planet with a fuckton of elements and ores. We already recycle a number of materials, countries are already exploring mineral extraction from sea beds, etc.
No, he's recognized that "a finite and insignificant perturbation in the infinity of existence" is simple hand waving nonsense, and doesn't say or answer anything.
That's what I was thinking. There is the fact that we cannot see beyond the currently observable universe because there hasn't been enough time for information to reach to us..
If the observable universe is just a a finite perturbation of an infinitely eternal universe, then the universe as a whole is infinitely void beyond the observable universe (and nothing will reach to us from the beyond.)
Either that, or we have to assume that some sort of cosmic event snuff out the shit out light and matter creating a big void wherein the observable universe (a minuscule volume of this void) resides, and which is why we cannot discern crap from beyond the observable.
It is an exotic idea that is not falsifiable, me thinks.
How much is "Islamic" and how much is stolen from cultures that they have destroyed? For example "islamic" arches can clearly be seen in pre-islamic Persia. You will fins that most things that Muslims claim to have invented turn out to be "we destroyed this library but copied this bit"
We can say the same with almost every other culture. What's the point here?
So where are the other old guys? I can't imagine they've all moved up the chain into management.
I am close to my 50's, and I don't see myself changing. I have a couple of examples I am hell bent to imitate.
Two years ago I met with ex-coworkers at Hooters to say goodbye to one of our colleagues who was finally retiring. Good old low-level embedded development guy finally retiring in his 70's, making 6-figures since who knows. A few months ago, one of my colleagues finally retired in his 80s (yeah, fucking 80s). He's been an Oracle expert whose experience (and personality obviously) is sorely missed.
You go where you will. You define your own fate. I've seen people going up to management, then to establish their own development firms, then go to architecture jobs, then back to development in specialized domains, then back to management of software development, and so on.
People with an itch go with the flow. They adapt and change roles. They learn and accrue significant expertise. They specialize in something, then they move to something else.
No one stays just doing "coding".
I mean, who does? You don't even have to reach your 50's. Who does just "coding" after 10-15 years. The world of software is immense, even if one stays within a single niche (say, JEE or embedded work or what have you.) Technologies change the carpet under you and you change or you sink.
Rinse and repeat for years, decades, and all of the sudden, you have a fruitful and fulfilling life as a "software guys" well into your 70's.
It's a matter of mental versatility, agency and will. Do what you like, be good at it and fight for the salary and job balances that you want.
Vapers are assholes. They try to create massive clouds of their shit when inside and make small rooms feel like a Victoria pea-souper.
Oh, I feel outrage, I'm wrecked with emotions, hear my internet roar! Guarrr, guarrr!
Fuck the lot of you. Face your addition problem.
I don't vape, I don't smoke. But don't let that shit stop your mind from farting generalizations to the 4 winds.
Generally speaking, as a software developer (I'm currently working on a cross-platform game), I try to leave my development systems as close to stock as possible on the platforms my customers are likely to be using. That means I use Windows 10, macOS 10.12 (Sierra), and Ubuntu (16.04 LTS) w/ the default Unity desktop. I'll probably create a new Unity partition for 17.xx soon, and I'll certainly be leaving it with the stock desktop. This gives me the greatest chance of reproducing application bugs on these systems, and it also helps keep my development machines as stable as possible.
Whenever Windows 8 apologists said something like "stop complaining, you can just install xxx plugin to get your start menu back", they were completely missing the point. You shouldn't HAVE to customize your OS to get it to a practical, working state. Moreso, my experience is that every sort of major modification you make to your system simply increases the likelihood of introducing stability issues, causing strange application bugs, and all other sorts of headaches. Now, each time you ask for advice from someone, you have to explain "I'm not running the default environment", and the likelihood of getting problems resolved decreases.
So, complaints about a default desktop environment aren't necessarily lazy or trolling, even if there are workarounds. There really shouldn't be any excuse for a user to experience a sub-optimal desktop environment these days, especially in one of the world's most popular Linux distros.
I totally agree with this. I work in multi-platform turn-key/COTS systems and variations of these kinds are a pita. Not only for development but for automated regression builds. We have to have sufficient permutations reflecting system changes to get some level of confidence. Worst migration we had was to adapt our systems to work on RH6 and RH7.
And that's on headless systems. Desktop changes are a PITA. Shit stops working all of the sudden because your system depends on A which depends on B which depends on C to behave a certain way (which no longer does.) Heisenbugs and Mandelbugs galore.
Good news, you don't have to use Gnome. A cool thing about Linux is that you can install a whole different desktop environment very easily.
I've been using Linux for decades but this attitude always puzzles me. Most folk don't have the skill, time or energy to integrate the applications they want with a different flavour of desktop. In the mainstream, you take the desktop you're offered with the applications which are integrated for that distro. FWIW, I switched to Mint to avoid Unity.
That's why I don't even bother anymore with Linux "desktop". I use it exclusively for server side stuff. Every damned linux distro has its own way of doing things and their own GUIs for administering a system (I don't even bother using them, command line purity, baby.)
For desktop, Windows or Mac. Change code, do limited compilation or testing. Push code to git or whatever. Ssh to linux server. Pull code down. Run full build, etc. Happy? Push to integration branch and let CI builds have it.
And that's for work. Let us not talk about media consumption. Linux lost that battle a long time ago.
The Italians have made Silvio Berlusconi prime minister multiple times. Donald Trump is basically the Hollywood remake of Silvio Berlusconi.
As much as I loathe the Silvio, these two are incomparable.
they'll be burning natural gas from North Africa.
That is still way better than burning coal.
Fucking A. And with increasing improvement in battery technology, they (and hopefully we at some point) will be reducing how much nat or syn gas gets burned for energy.
Because vaping, much like sneezing, is a normal bodily function.
Just like excessive perfume or bad body odors from people with bad hygiene. I'd rather see that legislated against TBH.
Who said anything about harmful? How about annoying? Infuriating? Laws like this reduce violence.
^^^ Logical fallacy by appealing to extremes. Someone needs a lesson in self control and in how to behave in a society full of imperfect individuals.
If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.
Not according to the law or plain old common sense. I mean seriously, this is one tortuously built self-serving argument you have going on there buddy.
This is the will of the people - not nannying. Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.
Until you have a way to legislate against people reeking of perfume or bad body odors for refusal to use deodorant or crass enough to throw a silent but deadly fart at a crowded restaurant, your personal argument sounds like a incredibly subjective NIMBY rant.
Vaping in crowded spaces annoy me, but you must show me that there are sufficiently negative side effects of that shit in the air for me to come down with pitchforks.
Will of the people my ass. We are talking about "feelings" not facts. Sure, in a democracy, the will of the people will eventually become law, but that does not make it right or ethical. After all, there was a time when the will of the people denied women the right to vote.
Stop throwing around with subjective, self-serving "will of the people" slogans and try to build your arguments with logic and ethics for once.
There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, people scratching themselves in private places, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...
Erm, no. If I scratch my nuts next to you, it doesn't affect you. Any issues you have with that are your problem. If someone starts smoking next to me, it DEFINITELY affects me. I'm an ex smoker, after 15 years of not smoking, if someone sparks up in a well ventilated room I will smell it within a minute. Yes smokers, its that bad. Now tell me that if someone has an itchy ball sack, you'll be able to tell if they've scratched it without seeing it. Now remember that anti-smoking laws ended up this way not because of health reasons, but because smokers were so annoying and intractable, if politely requested to take their habit elsewhere, they'd stamp their feet like an impudent child shouting "Its my right, my right, my right, my right, my right". So we took said rights away and they have no-one to blame but themselves. Sadly the same thing is happening with vapers. I think vaping is good as it's helped several of my friends and family members kick the habit and it looks like its for good this time but there are a large subset of vapers who have no idea of common courtesy and so we're ending up with the same problems as smokers for the same reasons. There's a reason the vape pipe is now colloquially known as a "douche flute".
And we took away that right once we had scientific evidence against second hand smoking. The laws were firmly passed (in whatever nature they have) because of that as their cause, not on mass intransigence.
I want to see evidence that e-cigs and vaping are as bad as smoking (from a second-hand perspective.) By the logic inspiring these bans, I pretty much have grounds to demand restaurants not to allow people in who reek of perfume or body odors because of my real problems with my sinus.
It is obvious (at least to me) that such a proposition from me would be absurd.
It's annoying. A smoking friend of mine always vapes inside, because it's supposed to be ok. However, it's really annoying when the whole room is filled with a white fog that smells like bourbon (or vanilla or caramel or apple or whatever smell he chooses).
Not at all different from having people near you bathed in perfume or bad body odors for lack of proper hygiene.
I can get banning of actual cigarettes, for we knew quite well (with quantifiable data) about the negative side effects of second hand smoking.
But e-cigarretes? Vaping? Where is the data?
Are we banning something as a precautionary measure without knowing what the hell we are measuring? Or is it simply because we do not want to offend people?
Unless I am committing a "fallacy of the excluded middle" in the way I'm describing what I am seeing, I have a significant problem with either question.
What makes you think HK doesn't already do this? Remember HK is just a richer part of China, and China make islands in the sea.
Where did I say that I *thought* HK doesn't already do it?
but only 1% (or some shit like that) are experienced at OS or compiler development. News at 11 (btw, 80% of all statistics are made up, including this one, turtles all the way down.)