"We need to think as a society what we want to do about it. I don't know the answers -- I am just asking the questions."
He is saying temporary ban while we figure it out... Like Trump's Mus^H^H^H travel ban. You supported the travel ban in the past, didn't describe Trump as being "preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims".
Agreed, but it's likely that the answer will be something like "it depends on the individual". That's certainly how it is with other types of porn. The majority of people can handle it just fine, but some small number... And because it's children, people who don't have the same ability as adults to protect themselves...
Well, it's hard to see how western lawmakers will not go for an outright ban, which is unfortunate because there could be some real benefit to society here.
The US allows far greater levels of pollution / health damage though, so of course it's cheaper. How much do you pay for health insurance to cover that? How much worse is your environment because of it?
We have Google to thank for that. The Googlebot doesn't like having to run Javascript just to see content and down-ranks sites heavily because of it. In order to be found sites have to offer content to Javascript-free clients, including you.
It's kinda scary how much power Google wields, even when it does work in our favour.
In a way it's surprising that the US doesn't have something similar, because in a very pro-capitalist society your personal data is an asset to be owned and monetized. Some people have aspects of their personal data covered by intellectual property laws, e.g. actors and their likenesses, but the average person doesn't seem to have any ownership of their data at all.
It's the same as back in the days when not everyone had a mobile phone. People would send out invites to social events by just texting everyone in their phone's memory, and if you were not in it then you were likely to be overlooked or get a last minute on-the-day email. Not deliberately, but because human nature is forgetful and lazy and 19 out of 20 people they would think to invite are in their phone.
Also remember that in the EU we have positive freedom, which means companies generally aren't allowed to use making your social life suck as motivation for you to give up data or pay for services.
Tidal is interesting because despite being backed by many big names, with many exclusive albums and extras, it is failing. Turns out people think it's just too expensive, and no amount of star power can fix that. Meanwhile cheaper alternatives like Spotify are popular but screw artists with tiny royalties, and royalties was one of the reasons that Tidal was created.
Maybe there is a really narrow window where people will pay enough in great enough numbers to provide a good income to the artists from streaming... But probably not.
Smart countries have realized that fossil fuels are on the way out. In the Middle East they are mostly investing in tourism as an alternative, and in Europe countries are investing in renewable energy technology that they can export.
Boomers have all the money and property, so many younger people's plan is now to basically wait until some boomer relative dies and they win the inheritance lottery.
We are moving back to the days of landed gentry, where the main way most people get to have personal wealth or property is by inheriting it.
The very definition of having "made it" has changed too. These days if a young person can get a house they are doing pretty well, and that property is also their pension. It's often their inheritance too - in the UK the only way many people can afford property, if they can at all, is with a loan from their parents or just waiting for some relative to die and leave them some money/property.
Weird that you see this as "blaming" men. Why the automatic assumption that men are being victimized?
It's just an observation. A rather poor one, but it doesn't seem to be saying "men waste time on video games when they should be working" or anything like that. In fact the main thing they found is that when men have more free time due to recession, they often spend it playing video games, and then hypothesise that even when work is available young guys prefer a better work/life balance over long hours at the office.
Quite likely it's just the positive effect of more women in the workplace changing the culture, or at least some more progressive ideas about priorities in life.
I actually posted elsewhere that I think there is a good case to be made for checking. On the other hand... If you are root you accept some responsibility, like not deleting important stuff or misconfiguring things.
But year, on balance probably best to check. My point was that few people argued that point, they just made ad hominem attacks.
In Europe the standard is 230V and domestic outlets can usually provide 3000W+. My home charger is 7.7kW, which is similar to what electric cookers normally use. Homes in the UK are usually good for 100A, which will probably have to increase to accommodate a cooker + shower + charger. Or perhaps some kind of smart system where the charger yields to the cooker and shower when necessary.
I suppose technically it depends on adduser.conf and the regex defined in there, which only one tool apparently bothers to check. GNU isn't POSIX either, in any case.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on that. I looked at the rules (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf) and chapter 13 clearly states:
13.80 Applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for the applicantâ(TM)s, or anotherâ(TM)s, protection, or that of premises, should be refused on the grounds that firearms are not an acceptable means of protection in Great Britain. It has been the view of successive Governments for many years that the private possession and carriage of firearms for personal protection is likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. This principle should be maintained in the case of applications from representatives of banks and firms protecting valuables or large quantities of money, or from private security guards and bodyguards. The exception to this would be armed guards on UK flagged ships, the justification being the unique threat posed by piracy to cargo and passenger ships in specific high risk geographical areas.
So that being the case, what grounds did you make your application on?
Which is really damn obviously false, because the relevant standards permit it and various Linux systems permit it. It's only "not valid" as defined by systemd.
No! This is where you are confused. It's not valid. Some Linux tools allow it, but they shouldn't. The rules for Linux user names say they must not start with a digit, and for good reason (could accidentally insert a space and be treated as a UID, similar to the old "rm/rf / random_dir" mistake).
- The first bug was closed immediately despite systemd treating what Lennart considers an error (debatable) in the worst way possible - escalating a process to root privileges when the user is clearly stating it shouldn't. - The second bug is an attempt to say "OK, we'll play your game, if you're saying that's correct behavior because of {another issue}, then let's state that {another issue} is also a bug because that's not right either.
One of us has this backwards... It looks to me like in both cases Lennart is saying that systemd follows the Linux standard, not POSIX. Under the Linux rules on usernames they can't start with a number, so using "0day" as a username is invalid and the service won't start because the user doesn't exist.
Unfortunately some tools allow you to create a user whose name starts with a number, which is a bug in those tools.
I'd say that it's valid to check for this in systemd due to the resulting action being "run as root", but I can appreciate the argument that systemd shouldn't be checking for bugs in other software. And the second bug is complaining that systemd isn't POSIX, which is by design so really is not-a-bug. One could argue it should be POSIX, but bug reports are not the place to do that.
That's a fair point. I guess the question is if the input should be validated by systemd or the tool creating the user. I suppose that as the service may be run as root, it's not unreasonable to make that extra check.
Thanks for being the first one to answer with an actual argument rather than "hurrr, systemd!"
So in order for this to work, we have to have a security outfit running as user "0day", a username that is illegal on Linux but apparently some buggy tools allow, and a compromised project... And somehow this is the fault of systemd, not the broken tools that allow you to create illegal user names.
He means that people who put down deposits in the first few nanoseconds of the site going live will be offered the chance to order their cars for delivery soon. But if you order one on Friday, you won't get it until the middle of next year at the earliest.
My Leaf has to go back at the end of 2018. I'm hoping but not really optimistic that I'll be able to get an M3 by then. Maybe if I move to a left-hand-drive country...
Slashdot Mirror
From the summary:
"We need to think as a society what we want to do about it. I don't know the answers -- I am just asking the questions."
He is saying temporary ban while we figure it out... Like Trump's Mus^H^H^H travel ban. You supported the travel ban in the past, didn't describe Trump as being "preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims".
Why the double standard?
Agreed, but it's likely that the answer will be something like "it depends on the individual". That's certainly how it is with other types of porn. The majority of people can handle it just fine, but some small number... And because it's children, people who don't have the same ability as adults to protect themselves...
Well, it's hard to see how western lawmakers will not go for an outright ban, which is unfortunate because there could be some real benefit to society here.
The US allows far greater levels of pollution / health damage though, so of course it's cheaper. How much do you pay for health insurance to cover that? How much worse is your environment because of it?
We have Google to thank for that. The Googlebot doesn't like having to run Javascript just to see content and down-ranks sites heavily because of it. In order to be found sites have to offer content to Javascript-free clients, including you.
It's kinda scary how much power Google wields, even when it does work in our favour.
In a way it's surprising that the US doesn't have something similar, because in a very pro-capitalist society your personal data is an asset to be owned and monetized. Some people have aspects of their personal data covered by intellectual property laws, e.g. actors and their likenesses, but the average person doesn't seem to have any ownership of their data at all.
It's the same as back in the days when not everyone had a mobile phone. People would send out invites to social events by just texting everyone in their phone's memory, and if you were not in it then you were likely to be overlooked or get a last minute on-the-day email. Not deliberately, but because human nature is forgetful and lazy and 19 out of 20 people they would think to invite are in their phone.
Also remember that in the EU we have positive freedom, which means companies generally aren't allowed to use making your social life suck as motivation for you to give up data or pay for services.
Tidal is interesting because despite being backed by many big names, with many exclusive albums and extras, it is failing. Turns out people think it's just too expensive, and no amount of star power can fix that. Meanwhile cheaper alternatives like Spotify are popular but screw artists with tiny royalties, and royalties was one of the reasons that Tidal was created.
Maybe there is a really narrow window where people will pay enough in great enough numbers to provide a good income to the artists from streaming... But probably not.
Electricity isn't particular expensive in Norway: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...
They are transitioning towards electricity for everything, e.g. transport where they have a lot of electric cars and boats.
Heating in particular is subsidised. Some people get it for free as a byproduct of some other process. The government makes sure people are warm.
Smart countries have realized that fossil fuels are on the way out. In the Middle East they are mostly investing in tourism as an alternative, and in Europe countries are investing in renewable energy technology that they can export.
Everyone else is missing the boat.
Boomers have all the money and property, so many younger people's plan is now to basically wait until some boomer relative dies and they win the inheritance lottery.
We are moving back to the days of landed gentry, where the main way most people get to have personal wealth or property is by inheriting it.
The very definition of having "made it" has changed too. These days if a young person can get a house they are doing pretty well, and that property is also their pension. It's often their inheritance too - in the UK the only way many people can afford property, if they can at all, is with a loan from their parents or just waiting for some relative to die and leave them some money/property.
Weird that you see this as "blaming" men. Why the automatic assumption that men are being victimized?
It's just an observation. A rather poor one, but it doesn't seem to be saying "men waste time on video games when they should be working" or anything like that. In fact the main thing they found is that when men have more free time due to recession, they often spend it playing video games, and then hypothesise that even when work is available young guys prefer a better work/life balance over long hours at the office.
Quite likely it's just the positive effect of more women in the workplace changing the culture, or at least some more progressive ideas about priorities in life.
I've noticed that on some flights they don't censor the movies as much, keeping in the nudity and sex scenes.
I actually posted elsewhere that I think there is a good case to be made for checking. On the other hand... If you are root you accept some responsibility, like not deleting important stuff or misconfiguring things.
But year, on balance probably best to check. My point was that few people argued that point, they just made ad hominem attacks.
http://www.unix.com/man-page/l...
See your NAME_REGEX in /etc/adduser.conf
Ah, that's really interesting, I didn't know that it was different there. Thanks.
In Europe the standard is 230V and domestic outlets can usually provide 3000W+. My home charger is 7.7kW, which is similar to what electric cookers normally use. Homes in the UK are usually good for 100A, which will probably have to increase to accommodate a cooker + shower + charger. Or perhaps some kind of smart system where the charger yields to the cooker and shower when necessary.
I suppose technically it depends on adduser.conf and the regex defined in there, which only one tool apparently bothers to check. GNU isn't POSIX either, in any case.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on that. I looked at the rules (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf) and chapter 13 clearly states:
13.80 Applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for the applicantâ(TM)s, or anotherâ(TM)s, protection, or that of premises, should be refused on the grounds that firearms are not an acceptable means of protection in Great Britain. It has been the view of successive Governments for many years that the private possession and carriage of firearms for personal protection is likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. This principle should be maintained in the case of applications from representatives of banks and firms protecting valuables or large quantities of money, or from private security guards and bodyguards. The exception to this would be armed guards on UK flagged ships, the justification being the unique threat posed by piracy to cargo and passenger ships in specific high risk geographical areas.
So that being the case, what grounds did you make your application on?
Which is really damn obviously false, because the relevant standards permit it and various Linux systems permit it. It's only "not valid" as defined by systemd.
No! This is where you are confused. It's not valid. Some Linux tools allow it, but they shouldn't. The rules for Linux user names say they must not start with a digit, and for good reason (could accidentally insert a space and be treated as a UID, similar to the old "rm /rf / random_dir" mistake).
- The first bug was closed immediately despite systemd treating what Lennart considers an error (debatable) in the worst way possible - escalating a process to root privileges when the user is clearly stating it shouldn't.
- The second bug is an attempt to say "OK, we'll play your game, if you're saying that's correct behavior because of {another issue}, then let's state that {another issue} is also a bug because that's not right either.
One of us has this backwards... It looks to me like in both cases Lennart is saying that systemd follows the Linux standard, not POSIX. Under the Linux rules on usernames they can't start with a number, so using "0day" as a username is invalid and the service won't start because the user doesn't exist.
Unfortunately some tools allow you to create a user whose name starts with a number, which is a bug in those tools.
I'd say that it's valid to check for this in systemd due to the resulting action being "run as root", but I can appreciate the argument that systemd shouldn't be checking for bugs in other software. And the second bug is complaining that systemd isn't POSIX, which is by design so really is not-a-bug. One could argue it should be POSIX, but bug reports are not the place to do that.
That's a fair point. I guess the question is if the input should be validated by systemd or the tool creating the user. I suppose that as the service may be run as root, it's not unreasonable to make that extra check.
Thanks for being the first one to answer with an actual argument rather than "hurrr, systemd!"
So in order for this to work, we have to have a security outfit running as user "0day", a username that is illegal on Linux but apparently some buggy tools allow, and a compromised project... And somehow this is the fault of systemd, not the broken tools that allow you to create illegal user names.
Coreboot supports it: https://www.coreboot.org/Board...
Doesn't seem too bad, similar to the X200 in terms of there being binary blog microcode and the ME. Maybe it's the GPU.
He means that people who put down deposits in the first few nanoseconds of the site going live will be offered the chance to order their cars for delivery soon. But if you order one on Friday, you won't get it until the middle of next year at the earliest.
My Leaf has to go back at the end of 2018. I'm hoping but not really optimistic that I'll be able to get an M3 by then. Maybe if I move to a left-hand-drive country...