Return on investment is not number of times the investment, it's another word for profits. So Beauty and the best cost $300 million to make but pulled in $1.263 billion. That's $963 million and minus whatever expenses are involved in that (royalties etc) it's still a much larger return on investment than $253 million.
Or it's just that Jim Zemlin doesn't really get open source or it's community. Remember that this is the clueless blowhard that thought people joined the Linux Foundation to get free stuff.
The user base was not "overwhelmingly against the change". Most users don't care one way or the other and again, most of the noise on the forums were people misrepresenting systemd's design and goals(ex saying that it was designed for the desktop when it was actually solving problems on severs), posting fake or already solved. or taking some forum post out of context.
Proof of all of this is the lack of adoption of Deuvian. If developers were so upset they would contribute to that instead of Debian, but they haven't. Take a look at these stats. What do the top four distros hae in common?. They all run systemd. If users were actually upset, they would switch, but most haven't. Instead we have people trying to hijack every single post about Linux by whining about how their feelings are hurt about systemd being adopted no matter how off topic.
Want to know how the Linux community handles bad ideas? Years ago we had Devfs, people hated it because it wasn't traditional and complained it was badly implemented but in the end, it was adopted with far less discussion than systemd. What did the devs do? They looked, realized that even though the implementation left a lot to be desired it solved some very real wold problems, sat down and created a competing implementation that solved all of the same problems with fewer downsides. Remember bitkeeper? It solved many problems but in the end turned out to be unworkable, did they go back to CVS? NO. Linus himself sat down and started GIT because he couldn't stand the thought of going back to the old way. In the same way, systemd solves very real problems, especially on servers but not just on servers. I'm convinced that if systemd were to be replaced, it would not be a rollback but a redesign of the core systemd functionality, done better.
I recall having an absolute panic attack a the thought of Systemd from reading posts here on Slashdot and then going and looking into it myself and discovering it wasn't as bad as it's detractors made it out to be. Also, I think Fedora got to deal with the worst of the teething problems so there was only minor breakage when Systemd hit debian testing. I myself had a 5 minute hang that I eventually tracked down to a configured mount for a drive that I had previously moved. Later versions were more explicit as to what was going on, reducing the confusion and by the time it hit debian stable, it was pretty much rock solid.
Since a part of my day job actually involves tweaking init scripts, I can tell you that it actually made my life easier
Really though, I don't get this thing where people need to call themselves graybeards to emphasise their point. When I started using Linux I had to write my modem dialup script by hand and hand build the modelines in the X config, custom compile my kernel etc. I also used to do a ton of hand compiling packages. Now things have changed and life has gotten easier and I find I don't miss having to do everything the hard way (although I still have about 1% of the systems I maintain running custom kernels and only a few hand compiled packages.
The Linux community attacks itself far worse than vague "black-hat hackers", Microsoft, SCO, or any other external force ever could hope to do.
I don't think I've ever seen so much FUD in one post
Just look at the immense community disruption that systemd has caused. It's clearly unwanted by a lot of the community, especially the serious users like the developers and administrators who are responsible for running Linux servers and other critical Linux installations. Forcing systemd into Debian tore apart the decades-old community of what was once the most stable, reliable and trusted Linux distro around.
There would not have been a problem if someone hadn't stared a misinformation campaign a full year after Debian had already had an internal debate, weighed the pros and cons and went with systemd. Yes, there were growing pains, but theve all been pretty much ironed out by now and most people who do this for a living don't actually care. The distros who switched, haven't seen any loss of users because of it and life moves on.
Then there's GNOME 3, which has also caused a huge schism within the Linux community. It's pretty widely disliked, yet is forced on users as the default desktop environment by a number of the major Linux distros. While GNOME 2 eventually got to a point where it was mostly usable, we shouldn't forget that the GNOME project itself was initially founded for ideological reasons, rather than practical reasons, again splitting the community.
Some people disagreed about how things should be done and spent their OWN time on their own project so what's the problem? Some people preferred KDE and some QT.
It doesn't help that Ubuntu had been dabbling with things like Upstart, Unity and Mir for a long while, again splintering the community.
When harm comes to the Linux community, it's pretty much never some external force that's responsible. It's the Linux community turning on itself in one way or another. It's one set of Linux users attacking some other set of Linux users. The Linux community is its own worst enemy.
Most of that is fine.. Forks are actually a strength and not a weakness. People work on what they want work on and in some cases the forks learn from each other or just fade into obscurity and who are we to say what Shuttleworth is to spend his money on? Don't like it, don't use Ubuntu, it's simple.
I'm not entirely sure they were lying. I'm more than willing to bet that they honestly thought that with the right amount of money, they hire all of the right people and deliver a working product.
Quite often I run into "ideas people" who think all problems are easily solvable and are shocked and upset when I inform them that whatever idea they have in their head will be a harder problem to solve than they think it is. My two favorite examples: stock market predictor (but you can see the graph goes up here and down there) and automatic meeting summarizer (I was working for a company that had a whole team of people smarter than me doing natural language processing at the time and he thought we could do it in a few months with 3 people)
1)Found it, thanks. But it still seems from my reading of Proper Media's description, that they had some fight after which Green quit or felt he was forced out. At any rate, the complaint would be with Green and not Bardav
2)They should take that up with Green and not Bardav
3)That's an interesting assumption and given some of the lawsuits in the past and given the rambling nature of the suit and that "Prayer for Relief" item 4 is actually illegal and half of 5 is again, an attempt to make an end run around the laws governing type S corporations.
I am genuinely curious to know how the judge will take all of this
1: Since we can't see the loyalty agreement and whatever it had for termination clauses, it's hard to know who is at fault there.
2: Employees changing jobs is not theft. And according to their own lawsuit, it was their own ex partner Green who took the computers after some sort of fight between the partners making it a contract dispute between Green and the ex partners and not Bardav/Mikkelson.
3: Given their assertion that wanting a larger salary than they think is fair is fraud.. I'm inclined not to buy their assertion that he used the legal expenses to pay his divorce lawyer
So to summarize:
Ex partner / ex wife sells her half of Bardav(Snopes) to Proper Media.. but not really because that would illegal since companies can not own shares in type S corporations.. so instead she cut her share up between Proper Media's owners as an end run around the law.
She told them it was permitted according to Snopes bylaws but now there is a question if that's true, in which case they should be suing her.
They accuse Green from Proper Media of working exclusively on Snopes and not other projects.
Green (and partial stock holder) jumps ship after the fight and aligns with Mikkelson giving Mikkelson just over 50% and control of Bardav (Snopes).
Green takes 3 employees and their equipment with him. Proper media considers it theft.
A bunch of angry ramblings about Expenses they don't think should have been permitted.
Accusations of Fraud for wanting a larger salary than they think is appropriate
There is nothing here that makes me want to take Proper Media's side in this. From their own words, they put themselves into the middle of a messy divorce by offering to buy out the ex wife and were shocked when that didn't go over well.
No I characterized it correctly. The study states that the dosage is less effective but at least won't make the situation worse so people should try it anyway if there is no other option (worst case: it does nothing). The part you don't get, is that a less effective dose from an Epipen can be still be fatal.
Typical uneducated response. You don't know what the world is like but you think your country is the best anyways.
Do you honestly believe that other countries don't also do a ton of medical research?
The American system is only the best if you are rich and ranks poorly when compared to the rest of the world when it comes to actual results. Infant mortality? The US ranks below Most of Europe and Canada (Ranks above half of eastern Europe and Turkey) . Life expectancy? Ranks 31st.. The only thing your country excels at is Cancer treatment and even that depends on the type of cancer involved.
OK, I think I'm not being clear. I agree completely and that's why my original post stated "potentially disastrous results"
The study I posted said that expired Epipens are more likely to provide a reduced dose but should be used anyway if there is no other option since a reduced dose is better than no dose and the Epipen won't poison you. IE the best of the worst options.
For that, I got 2 replies (not going to count the AC) and a downmod from people who fail at reading comprehension who took the study to mean that expired Epipens are just fine, when the study said no such thing.
For prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis, we recommend the use of EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors that are not outdated. If, however, the only autoinjector available is an outdated one, it could be used as long as no discoloration or precipitates are apparent because the potential benefit of using it is greater than the potential risk of a suboptimal epinephrine dose or of no epinephrine treatment at all.
Translation: EpiPen dosages can be used past expiration because even a less effective/non effective EpiPen is less of a risk than no Epipen.
I think you skipped down to the part where it said go ahead and use them anyways because the benefits outweigh the risks but missed this part:
"Epinephrine bioavailability from the outdated EpiPen autoinjectors was significantly reduced (P
I suspect at some point they're going to be forced to disclose some numbers at least in aggregate to show investors that the content is popular and worth the money relative to other content.
The thing to remember here, is that a lot of the other content was going away while the US studios tried to fight the rise of Netflix. I still recall how many people here said Netflix wasn't worth the money since it didn't have as many shows as it sued to. Coming up with their own content was really their only option.
UP here, UPS won't deliver it to the UPS store without the shipper's permission so instead they fail to deliver and then demand I drive to their depot and pick it up which is right around where I tell them I don't own a car and will not ride the bus for 1.5 hours each way to to get it so they can just go ahead and return it.
We already have DRM and we already have studios who only license their content to services with DRM. This doesn't solve the DRM problem, it just moves it to where we can better sandbox the DRM without giving it access to the whole machine, what this does is allow better competition in the browser, OS and device markets by freeing the DRM from custom apps, Flash, or Silverlight.
It is not perfect, but it does make things better than they are now
That is a known trade off and was also noted by some of the kernel devs when Linux started adding randomization but in the end, in Linux case, the extra security was considered more important.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic makes my brain hurt.
Return on investment is not number of times the investment, it's another word for profits. So Beauty and the best cost $300 million to make but pulled in $1.263 billion. That's $963 million and minus whatever expenses are involved in that (royalties etc) it's still a much larger return on investment than $253 million.
Or it's just that Jim Zemlin doesn't really get open source or it's community. Remember that this is the clueless blowhard that thought people joined the Linux Foundation to get free stuff.
Been done before but the Ford setup is much more convincing.
Don't know about that. Toyota's was pretty good.
No matter how many times I proofread....
"posting fake or already solved" should be "posting fake or already solved bug reports (even if the problem was solved months or even years ago)"
The user base was not "overwhelmingly against the change". Most users don't care one way or the other and again, most of the noise on the forums were people misrepresenting systemd's design and goals(ex saying that it was designed for the desktop when it was actually solving problems on severs), posting fake or already solved. or taking some forum post out of context.
Proof of all of this is the lack of adoption of Deuvian. If developers were so upset they would contribute to that instead of Debian, but they haven't. Take a look at these stats. What do the top four distros hae in common?. They all run systemd. If users were actually upset, they would switch, but most haven't. Instead we have people trying to hijack every single post about Linux by whining about how their feelings are hurt about systemd being adopted no matter how off topic.
Want to know how the Linux community handles bad ideas? Years ago we had Devfs, people hated it because it wasn't traditional and complained it was badly implemented but in the end, it was adopted with far less discussion than systemd. What did the devs do? They looked, realized that even though the implementation left a lot to be desired it solved some very real wold problems, sat down and created a competing implementation that solved all of the same problems with fewer downsides. Remember bitkeeper? It solved many problems but in the end turned out to be unworkable, did they go back to CVS? NO. Linus himself sat down and started GIT because he couldn't stand the thought of going back to the old way. In the same way, systemd solves very real problems, especially on servers but not just on servers. I'm convinced that if systemd were to be replaced, it would not be a rollback but a redesign of the core systemd functionality, done better.
I recall having an absolute panic attack a the thought of Systemd from reading posts here on Slashdot and then going and looking into it myself and discovering it wasn't as bad as it's detractors made it out to be. Also, I think Fedora got to deal with the worst of the teething problems so there was only minor breakage when Systemd hit debian testing. I myself had a 5 minute hang that I eventually tracked down to a configured mount for a drive that I had previously moved. Later versions were more explicit as to what was going on, reducing the confusion and by the time it hit debian stable, it was pretty much rock solid.
Since a part of my day job actually involves tweaking init scripts, I can tell you that it actually made my life easier
Really though, I don't get this thing where people need to call themselves graybeards to emphasise their point. When I started using Linux I had to write my modem dialup script by hand and hand build the modelines in the X config, custom compile my kernel etc. I also used to do a ton of hand compiling packages. Now things have changed and life has gotten easier and I find I don't miss having to do everything the hard way (although I still have about 1% of the systems I maintain running custom kernels and only a few hand compiled packages.
The Linux community attacks itself far worse than vague "black-hat hackers", Microsoft, SCO, or any other external force ever could hope to do.
I don't think I've ever seen so much FUD in one post
Just look at the immense community disruption that systemd has caused. It's clearly unwanted by a lot of the community, especially the serious users like the developers and administrators who are responsible for running Linux servers and other critical Linux installations. Forcing systemd into Debian tore apart the decades-old community of what was once the most stable, reliable and trusted Linux distro around.
There would not have been a problem if someone hadn't stared a misinformation campaign a full year after Debian had already had an internal debate, weighed the pros and cons and went with systemd. Yes, there were growing pains, but theve all been pretty much ironed out by now and most people who do this for a living don't actually care. The distros who switched, haven't seen any loss of users because of it and life moves on.
Then there's GNOME 3, which has also caused a huge schism within the Linux community. It's pretty widely disliked, yet is forced on users as the default desktop environment by a number of the major Linux distros. While GNOME 2 eventually got to a point where it was mostly usable, we shouldn't forget that the GNOME project itself was initially founded for ideological reasons, rather than practical reasons, again splitting the community.
Some people disagreed about how things should be done and spent their OWN time on their own project so what's the problem? Some people preferred KDE and some QT.
It doesn't help that Ubuntu had been dabbling with things like Upstart, Unity and Mir for a long while, again splintering the community.
When harm comes to the Linux community, it's pretty much never some external force that's responsible. It's the Linux community turning on itself in one way or another. It's one set of Linux users attacking some other set of Linux users. The Linux community is its own worst enemy.
Most of that is fine.. Forks are actually a strength and not a weakness. People work on what they want work on and in some cases the forks learn from each other or just fade into obscurity and who are we to say what Shuttleworth is to spend his money on? Don't like it, don't use Ubuntu, it's simple.
I already left a bad review after mine waited until just out of warranty to start spamming me from a non removable app.
I'm not entirely sure they were lying. I'm more than willing to bet that they honestly thought that with the right amount of money, they hire all of the right people and deliver a working product.
Quite often I run into "ideas people" who think all problems are easily solvable and are shocked and upset when I inform them that whatever idea they have in their head will be a harder problem to solve than they think it is. My two favorite examples: stock market predictor (but you can see the graph goes up here and down there) and automatic meeting summarizer (I was working for a company that had a whole team of people smarter than me doing natural language processing at the time and he thought we could do it in a few months with 3 people)
1)Found it, thanks. But it still seems from my reading of Proper Media's description, that they had some fight after which Green quit or felt he was forced out. At any rate, the complaint would be with Green and not Bardav
2)They should take that up with Green and not Bardav
3)That's an interesting assumption and given some of the lawsuits in the past and given the rambling nature of the suit and that "Prayer for Relief" item 4 is actually illegal and half of 5 is again, an attempt to make an end run around the laws governing type S corporations.
I am genuinely curious to know how the judge will take all of this
I've had this problem solved for ages. I just use the Disable HTML5 autoplay plugin
Really? The tools are definitely there so we can't blame HTML5 for not providing the ability.
1: Since we can't see the loyalty agreement and whatever it had for termination clauses, it's hard to know who is at fault there.
2: Employees changing jobs is not theft. And according to their own lawsuit, it was their own ex partner Green who took the computers after some sort of fight between the partners making it a contract dispute between Green and the ex partners and not Bardav/Mikkelson.
3: Given their assertion that wanting a larger salary than they think is fair is fraud.. I'm inclined not to buy their assertion that he used the legal expenses to pay his divorce lawyer
So to summarize:
Ex partner / ex wife sells her half of Bardav(Snopes) to Proper Media.. but not really because that would illegal since companies can not own shares in type S corporations.. so instead she cut her share up between Proper Media's owners as an end run around the law.
She told them it was permitted according to Snopes bylaws but now there is a question if that's true, in which case they should be suing her.
They accuse Green from Proper Media of working exclusively on Snopes and not other projects.
Green (and partial stock holder) jumps ship after the fight and aligns with Mikkelson giving Mikkelson just over 50% and control of Bardav (Snopes).
Green takes 3 employees and their equipment with him. Proper media considers it theft.
A bunch of angry ramblings about Expenses they don't think should have been permitted.
Accusations of Fraud for wanting a larger salary than they think is appropriate
There is nothing here that makes me want to take Proper Media's side in this. From their own words, they put themselves into the middle of a messy divorce by offering to buy out the ex wife and were shocked when that didn't go over well.
No I characterized it correctly. The study states that the dosage is less effective but at least won't make the situation worse so people should try it anyway if there is no other option (worst case: it does nothing). The part you don't get, is that a less effective dose from an Epipen can be still be fatal.
Typical uneducated response. You don't know what the world is like but you think your country is the best anyways.
Do you honestly believe that other countries don't also do a ton of medical research?
The American system is only the best if you are rich and ranks poorly when compared to the rest of the world when it comes to actual results. Infant mortality? The US ranks below Most of Europe and Canada (Ranks above half of eastern Europe and Turkey) . Life expectancy? Ranks 31st.. The only thing your country excels at is Cancer treatment and even that depends on the type of cancer involved.
OK, I think I'm not being clear. I agree completely and that's why my original post stated "potentially disastrous results"
The study I posted said that expired Epipens are more likely to provide a reduced dose but should be used anyway if there is no other option since a reduced dose is better than no dose and the Epipen won't poison you. IE the best of the worst options.
For that, I got 2 replies (not going to count the AC) and a downmod from people who fail at reading comprehension who took the study to mean that expired Epipens are just fine, when the study said no such thing.
exactly.
You missed the point entirely.
It says:
For prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis, we recommend the use of EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors that are not outdated. If, however, the only autoinjector available is an outdated one, it could be used as long as no discoloration or precipitates are apparent because the potential benefit of using it is greater than the potential risk of a suboptimal epinephrine dose or of no epinephrine treatment at all.
Translation: EpiPen dosages can be used past expiration because even a less effective/non effective EpiPen is less of a risk than no Epipen.
I think you skipped down to the part where it said go ahead and use them anyways because the benefits outweigh the risks but missed this part: "Epinephrine bioavailability from the outdated EpiPen autoinjectors was significantly reduced (P
So less effective dosage then?
Some drugs really do expire with potentially disastrous results.
I suspect at some point they're going to be forced to disclose some numbers at least in aggregate to show investors that the content is popular and worth the money relative to other content.
The thing to remember here, is that a lot of the other content was going away while the US studios tried to fight the rise of Netflix. I still recall how many people here said Netflix wasn't worth the money since it didn't have as many shows as it sued to. Coming up with their own content was really their only option.
UP here, UPS won't deliver it to the UPS store without the shipper's permission so instead they fail to deliver and then demand I drive to their depot and pick it up which is right around where I tell them I don't own a car and will not ride the bus for 1.5 hours each way to to get it so they can just go ahead and return it.
We already have DRM and we already have studios who only license their content to services with DRM. This doesn't solve the DRM problem, it just moves it to where we can better sandbox the DRM without giving it access to the whole machine, what this does is allow better competition in the browser, OS and device markets by freeing the DRM from custom apps, Flash, or Silverlight.
It is not perfect, but it does make things better than they are now
That is a known trade off and was also noted by some of the kernel devs when Linux started adding randomization but in the end, in Linux case, the extra security was considered more important.