When I get the chance to read it's usually while traveling, while sitting in the bath or while vacationing, usually on a dive trip or a tropical beach. A Kindle like this would double the amount of reading I can get done during the later two.
It's mostly a matter of the opportunities which open up when you no longer have to think about a kindle like you think about a paper book or a piece of humidity sensitive electronics. The ability to use it in environments where one today wouldn't even consider using it will soon be taken for granted.
Security through obscurity works as long as the obscurity is there.
In this case, any bug in the code can be found from painstakingly trying out various combinations of input to Flash. It's a slow method of poking through the obscurity, but it will eventually find all security holes.
Publishing the source code is simply a quicker way to remove the obscurity.
In either case, yes, it works as long as the obscurity remains, as is always the case with security through obscurity.
It *is* pretty heartless to give your mother incorrect guidelines to follow, and then complain that reality does not conform to your imagined view.
Let's imagine Let's Encrypt vanished overnight. Would that suddenly make your misguided attempts to simplify away parts of reality to your mother more correct?
No, that would not happen. Your advice would still have been wrong from the start. And nothing will ever make your advice correct, because your advice is inconsistent with reality. That is not Let's Encrypt's fault. Nor is it the Slashdot crowd's fault.
So where is the damage caused by Linus in all this? The whole point of bringing this up is to show how Linus is not to be trusted, and that means that the decision by Linus must have caused damage, or it would be pointless bringing it up.
So where is the damage? What bad thing does Linux carry with it from this decision? How are we crippled by Linus' decision?
Even if companies like Epic switch over to Linux they do not surrender control of the product. There is no need to open the source code for the product; only make a shim layer which allows it to run, and add a different authorization mechanism than tying the instance to a specific OS instance.
This is a great thing for the megacorporations as well, as they will lower support costs (without necessarily lowering support revenue - on the contrary, probably) and will be able to compete better as they can devote more resources to implementation of new features as they no longer have to play catch-up with various Windows updates.
The geek generally doesn't care about Office because the geek doesn't use Office. That is the main reason not much happens in that space; Office is the weapon of choice for memos. That may well remain so, but it doesn't much matter, that is not where the battle is fought. Office is pretty much irrelevant.
The huge animation studios run Linux - because it provides the stability and long support cycles they need, and they do not run Photoshop. The market is a lot more fragmented than sweeping generalizations allow for.
That the geek sees only the code is a feature, not a bug. In the long run that wins the battle.
You seem to be under the impression that Stallman is after the glory of being the one that makes this happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. He simply wants it to happen. If it takes someone else grabbing the torch and running doesn't matter, as long as it happens.
This is very clear in how he advocates for everything he advocates, and in the approach he takes. This is not about him becoming a leader of some sort. He does not want that. It has simply happened, and he's not the kind of person who is interested in that - and that is why he's not doing a great job of it.
But right now, if he doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. And that is why he does it. And all this talk about how he could do it better completely misses the point.
He didn't call himself a medical doctor. He explained that he is an engineer in order to emphasize that he has a skill set suited for analyzing the problem at hand.
Which he is, and which he has.
The response is not valid. The premise is unsound.
On 2), he was trained in Sweden, where you are allowed to call yourself an engineer if you are trained as an engineer. That's the qualification required, and that's it.
Why would Swedish universities teach that in backwards states in backwards countries he is not allowed to call himself an engineer? It is not the case in most of the world, after all. I am fairly sure hardly anyone at the universities in Sweden know that Oregon has this crazy law.
If all the company wants to do is "survive" then the company really needs to rethink its strategy.
My role usually involves improvements, follow-ups and making sure customers are satisfied. The company can survive for quite some time while neglecting these aspects, but it will hurt more and more the longer it goes on.
But me being a way a month or two at the time is not a problem, as long as I do my job properly while I'm on location.
Before I buy a book, I find out it exists. I usually do that through articles, blogs and the like - and they tend to favor books which won awards.
So no, I do not directly check that. I do not care. But I will probably not find out a book is worth reading unless it has won an award, or is from an author who has previously won one. There are exceptions, but they are not that many.
To generalize, the right time to use objects is when you have an object oriented language, so that you have polymorphism, iteration and extendability. I use those a lot. The right tool for the right job.
Just providing object access does not really add much, except complexity.
And sure, it's good for something. It's just a lot more complicated to do difficult things when constrained by provided objects and expected interaction. Specialized interfaces with limited extendability are not a step forward.
And if we all blindly reject something because it was written long ago, what we're doing is not progress, but at best reinvention. There is a reason to use text streams and not objects.
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer
That sound you heard was the point whoosing right past.
The point isn't possibility of emitting text.
The point is:
"This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface."
And the fact that everything is an object is not very helpful unless there is consistent polymorphism and iterability.
As to easily extend the shell, you might have heard something like this:
"This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface."
This philosophy was first written down in 1978. Good of Microsoft to finally start catching up to it. Too bad they think it's better done with proprietary object interfaces than with plain text, but maybe the next iteration will get there.
The law makes no such distinction. If you are a suspect of a crime, and the testimony is in pursuit of the case, you are allowed to refuse to answer any question at all, with a few well defined exceptions.
And yes, one of those well defined exceptions is you may not refuse to give your name.
You distinguish between questions by them being either one of the well defined questions you must answer, or any other question, in which case you do not have to answer.
That is the law. And it doesn't care if the testimony admits a crime or not. It cares if it is attached to a criminal case or not.
It is not illegal to park your car at home at 7 AM in the morning either, but if the court asks you if you did that you have the right not to answer.
Your reasoning is a red herring. The point isn't admission of crime. The point is giving testimony. And answering questions about what you did at a certain time, or what password you set on your computer, is testimony.
Slashdot Mirror
When I get the chance to read it's usually while traveling, while sitting in the bath or while vacationing, usually on a dive trip or a tropical beach. A Kindle like this would double the amount of reading I can get done during the later two.
It's mostly a matter of the opportunities which open up when you no longer have to think about a kindle like you think about a paper book or a piece of humidity sensitive electronics. The ability to use it in environments where one today wouldn't even consider using it will soon be taken for granted.
AIS is not used by the ship to navigate, and the ships navigation is broken by this spoof. So it can't be AIS.
Also, as mentioned above, it is clearly stated that GPS is spoofed and nothing else.
Problem not solved, because breaking TrustZone means breaking the machine BENEATH the OS level.
So the Scandinavian countries are inefficient and opressive [sic]? Thanks for the information, nobody in them seems to notice!
Security through obscurity works as long as the obscurity is there.
In this case, any bug in the code can be found from painstakingly trying out various combinations of input to Flash. It's a slow method of poking through the obscurity, but it will eventually find all security holes.
Publishing the source code is simply a quicker way to remove the obscurity.
In either case, yes, it works as long as the obscurity remains, as is always the case with security through obscurity.
It *is* pretty heartless to give your mother incorrect guidelines to follow, and then complain that reality does not conform to your imagined view.
Let's imagine Let's Encrypt vanished overnight. Would that suddenly make your misguided attempts to simplify away parts of reality to your mother more correct?
No, that would not happen. Your advice would still have been wrong from the start. And nothing will ever make your advice correct, because your advice is inconsistent with reality. That is not Let's Encrypt's fault. Nor is it the Slashdot crowd's fault.
It is YOUR fault.
So where is the damage caused by Linus in all this? The whole point of bringing this up is to show how Linus is not to be trusted, and that means that the decision by Linus must have caused damage, or it would be pointless bringing it up.
So where is the damage? What bad thing does Linux carry with it from this decision? How are we crippled by Linus' decision?
Because it doesn't have to pay for externalities. People die from the generation of that coal power you buy so cheap, that is why it's so cheap.
Even if companies like Epic switch over to Linux they do not surrender control of the product. There is no need to open the source code for the product; only make a shim layer which allows it to run, and add a different authorization mechanism than tying the instance to a specific OS instance.
This is a great thing for the megacorporations as well, as they will lower support costs (without necessarily lowering support revenue - on the contrary, probably) and will be able to compete better as they can devote more resources to implementation of new features as they no longer have to play catch-up with various Windows updates.
The only real obstacle is inertia.
It is 6.5% of GDP. Current US Social Security is ~5% of GDP. In other words, it is not much more than is being spent right now.
And the main reason people turn off updates on Windows 7 is - Microsoft's underhanded Windows 10 upgrade tactics.
When they treat an automatic unattended unwanted upgrade as a critical update, they're teaching users to not accept critical updates.
If they had handled the Windows 10 updates in a mature manner, the impact of WannaCry would have been much, much lesser.
Ten year old netbooks have video acceleration aplenty. They can usually run compositing as well.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for an enterprising innovator to take a GNU solution, adapt it, and sell it and support of it to hospitals.
In the long run this will out-compete anything from the "throw our stuff away regularly" Microsoft.
The geek generally doesn't care about Office because the geek doesn't use Office. That is the main reason not much happens in that space; Office is the weapon of choice for memos. That may well remain so, but it doesn't much matter, that is not where the battle is fought. Office is pretty much irrelevant.
The huge animation studios run Linux - because it provides the stability and long support cycles they need, and they do not run Photoshop. The market is a lot more fragmented than sweeping generalizations allow for.
That the geek sees only the code is a feature, not a bug. In the long run that wins the battle.
You know what Stallman would think about that?
He'd love it!
You seem to be under the impression that Stallman is after the glory of being the one that makes this happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. He simply wants it to happen. If it takes someone else grabbing the torch and running doesn't matter, as long as it happens.
This is very clear in how he advocates for everything he advocates, and in the approach he takes. This is not about him becoming a leader of some sort. He does not want that. It has simply happened, and he's not the kind of person who is interested in that - and that is why he's not doing a great job of it.
But right now, if he doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. And that is why he does it. And all this talk about how he could do it better completely misses the point.
He didn't call himself a medical doctor. He explained that he is an engineer in order to emphasize that he has a skill set suited for analyzing the problem at hand.
Which he is, and which he has.
The response is not valid. The premise is unsound.
On 2), he was trained in Sweden, where you are allowed to call yourself an engineer if you are trained as an engineer. That's the qualification required, and that's it.
Why would Swedish universities teach that in backwards states in backwards countries he is not allowed to call himself an engineer? It is not the case in most of the world, after all. I am fairly sure hardly anyone at the universities in Sweden know that Oregon has this crazy law.
If all the company wants to do is "survive" then the company really needs to rethink its strategy.
My role usually involves improvements, follow-ups and making sure customers are satisfied. The company can survive for quite some time while neglecting these aspects, but it will hurt more and more the longer it goes on.
But me being a way a month or two at the time is not a problem, as long as I do my job properly while I'm on location.
Before I buy a book, I find out it exists. I usually do that through articles, blogs and the like - and they tend to favor books which won awards.
So no, I do not directly check that. I do not care. But I will probably not find out a book is worth reading unless it has won an award, or is from an author who has previously won one. There are exceptions, but they are not that many.
To generalize, the right time to use objects is when you have an object oriented language, so that you have polymorphism, iteration and extendability. I use those a lot. The right tool for the right job.
Just providing object access does not really add much, except complexity.
And sure, it's good for something. It's just a lot more complicated to do difficult things when constrained by provided objects and expected interaction. Specialized interfaces with limited extendability are not a step forward.
And if we all blindly reject something because it was written long ago, what we're doing is not progress, but at best reinvention. There is a reason to use text streams and not objects.
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
-- Henry Spencer
That sound you heard was the point whoosing right past.
The point isn't possibility of emitting text.
The point is:
"This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface."
"Parsing"? What other tools have you been using?
And the fact that everything is an object is not very helpful unless there is consistent polymorphism and iterability.
As to easily extend the shell, you might have heard something like this:
"This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface."
This philosophy was first written down in 1978. Good of Microsoft to finally start catching up to it. Too bad they think it's better done with proprietary object interfaces than with plain text, but maybe the next iteration will get there.
The law makes no such distinction. If you are a suspect of a crime, and the testimony is in pursuit of the case, you are allowed to refuse to answer any question at all, with a few well defined exceptions.
And yes, one of those well defined exceptions is you may not refuse to give your name.
You distinguish between questions by them being either one of the well defined questions you must answer, or any other question, in which case you do not have to answer.
That is the law. And it doesn't care if the testimony admits a crime or not. It cares if it is attached to a criminal case or not.
It is not illegal to park your car at home at 7 AM in the morning either, but if the court asks you if you did that you have the right not to answer.
Your reasoning is a red herring. The point isn't admission of crime. The point is giving testimony. And answering questions about what you did at a certain time, or what password you set on your computer, is testimony.