Oh, fsck, no. Please. She still hasn't learned that she was as popular as a bout of Ebola last time, and the the only reason she won the popular vote is that she wasn't Trump. Please, please let someone else run this time, otherwise we'll be stuck with another GOP fsckwit.
Mention of that frequency range is what attracted me to this article. Long, long ago (well, 30+ years) I was a satellite communications guy posted to a remote earth station, so I'm well aware of the dangers of using this band for anything but satellite comms. Why on earth does the FCC want to do this? Or have the major users given up C-band?
Putting JavaScript in ads causes too many problems, from drive-by malware to this (and many other things too). And it leads to annoying ads, like those pop-ups that never leave your field of view.
Yes, yes, I know it's because advertisers want to draw attention to their product. However, I suspect that many people would object less to ads if they weren't so annoying: compare to advertisements in (print) newspapers, who seem to have got along just fine without ads in -- what? -- several centuries so far?
If we banned JavaScript in ads, malware authors would have a lot more difficult task pushing their crap.
(Have to admit: only half-serious here, but still...)
I'd suspect that it's simply the publicity they've generated by prosecuting these guys. You know about it now, don't you? Now, if they'd just let things be, nobody would have been any the wiser.
> In my mind, this comes down to whether we want a better functioning OS or an OS that adheres to the mindset that I think attracted many of us to Linux in the first place.
I'm not even convinced that it makes for a better-functioning OS. I've been a Debian user for 12 years, mostly running 'testing' distributions. When systemd first turned up, I let it run for a couple of weeks, but switched back to sysV after half of my startup daemons didn't. Tried it again a month or two later, but when it had trouble stopping Samba (and, worse, claiming that it would wait *five* *minutes* before killing the processes, I decided enough was enough, and now I'm in the process of switching all five of my Debian boxes to Gentoo. Now, granted, the testing distribution is for just that purpose -- testing -- but if I'm dealing with the kind of idiot that would claim that systemd results in faster startups, but thinks that a five-minute wait to shut down a process is acceptable, then I want no part of it.
Debian should listen to what its users want, rather than just its developers. We're not all technically ignorant.
> Python 3 is the first break in backward compatibility this century!
Yep. And why is that not backward compatible too? Why don't they aim to get it right the first time? And if they don't get it right, why change it when that breaks previous uses? I'd also remind you that we're not very far into this century yet. If that was supposed to be sarcasm, it fell short.
> Python 2.x up to 2.9 is and will be backwardly compatible with python 1.6
Then how come my Debian system needed 2.6, 2.7 _and_ 2.8 all installed at one point? Why do Pythin apps and libraries keep breaking because somebody introduced a subtle change somewhere?
Whatever Python is, it's not very robust.
I still say it's the new shiny-shiny. Nothing more.
Uh-huh. And when the Python people learn something about backward compatibility and make up their minds (so we all don't have to keep half-a-dozen different versions of it lying around), then it might actually get somewhere. Until then, it's just the new shiny-shiny.
Slashdot Mirror
Should we get off your lawn?
"Carlos O'Donnell, a senior software engineer at Red Hat, recommended avoiding jokes altogether"
If only he'd said that when Red Hat came up with systemd ...
Oh, fsck, no. Please. She still hasn't learned that she was as popular as a bout of Ebola last time, and the the only reason she won the popular vote is that she wasn't Trump.
Please, please let someone else run this time, otherwise we'll be stuck with another GOP fsckwit.
Mention of that frequency range is what attracted me to this article. Long, long ago (well, 30+ years) I was a satellite communications guy posted to a remote earth station, so I'm well aware of the dangers of using this band for anything but satellite comms.
Why on earth does the FCC want to do this? Or have the major users given up C-band?
Putting JavaScript in ads causes too many problems, from drive-by malware to this (and many other things too). And it leads to annoying ads, like those pop-ups that never leave your field of view.
Yes, yes, I know it's because advertisers want to draw attention to their product. However, I suspect that many people would object less to ads if they weren't so annoying: compare to advertisements in (print) newspapers, who seem to have got along just fine without ads in -- what? -- several centuries so far?
If we banned JavaScript in ads, malware authors would have a lot more difficult task pushing their crap.
(Have to admit: only half-serious here, but still ...)
What if it were someone else's nuclear power plant?
You're talking about systemd, aren't you?
True. In my defence, I *was* a bit bored at the time.
Lessee now - that's 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 fish so far. Not bad. Any other takers?
Wait till we get Trump in the dock.
Kids these days. Wimps. Now, in *my* day, we had to catch a grizzly bear and press IT'S paw. While it was mauling us.
Now get off my lawn.
Currently that's scored "4:Funny". It *would* be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth.
I think they mean that it's 103% of the _last_ fake number they came up with.
An online stadium, of course.
Wow. That's a lot of buzzwords.
I think you left out "user experience", tho.
I'd suspect that it's simply the publicity they've generated by prosecuting these guys. You know about it now, don't you? Now, if they'd just let things be, nobody would have been any the wiser.
> They still get the fewest complaints on NewEgg for much of their stuff for a reason
The reason being that nobody can keep one of them running long enough to file a complaint?
In my experience, Volvos expect you to get out of their way. Not the other way round.
I'm not sure that removing the dogs would have helped in this case.
Ah, the "both sides do it" defense. So that makes it OK, then?
Where's a "-1 Pedantic" when you need one?
Great! Thanks for the advice.
> In my mind, this comes down to whether we want a better functioning OS or an OS that adheres to the mindset that I think attracted many of us to Linux in the first place.
I'm not even convinced that it makes for a better-functioning OS. I've been a Debian user for 12 years, mostly running 'testing' distributions. When systemd first turned up, I let it run for a couple of weeks, but switched back to sysV after half of my startup daemons didn't. Tried it again a month or two later, but when it had trouble stopping Samba (and, worse, claiming that it would wait *five* *minutes* before killing the processes, I decided enough was enough, and now I'm in the process of switching all five of my Debian boxes to Gentoo. Now, granted, the testing distribution is for just that purpose -- testing -- but if I'm dealing with the kind of idiot that would claim that systemd results in faster startups, but thinks that a five-minute wait to shut down a process is acceptable, then I want no part of it.
Debian should listen to what its users want, rather than just its developers. We're not all technically ignorant.
> Python 3 is the first break in backward compatibility this century!
Yep. And why is that not backward compatible too? Why don't they aim to get it right the first time? And if they don't get it right, why change it when that breaks previous uses?
I'd also remind you that we're not very far into this century yet. If that was supposed to be sarcasm, it fell short.
> Python 2.x up to 2.9 is and will be backwardly compatible with python 1.6
Then how come my Debian system needed 2.6, 2.7 _and_ 2.8 all installed at one point? Why do Pythin apps and libraries keep breaking because somebody introduced a subtle change somewhere?
Whatever Python is, it's not very robust.
I still say it's the new shiny-shiny. Nothing more.
Uh-huh. And when the Python people learn something about backward compatibility and make up their minds (so we all don't have to keep half-a-dozen different versions of it lying around), then it might actually get somewhere. Until then, it's just the new shiny-shiny.