Yes, but you're confusing having any agenda with having a specific agenda you happen to disagree with.
In this case the Journalist's bias is clear: they want eyeballs. "Minor transformer blow-out, no-one hurt" is not going to bring eyeballs. "Accident at Nuclear Power plant! Safety questioned of facility on New York City's doorstep" is.
Unfortunately not, the OP is right. I was tempted to bookmark a few (at least one was predicting the US swamped with infections within two weeks) so I could ridicule them later, but decided against it because (1) that would be cruel especially in the light of the subject matter, and (2) because people would start bringing up my record in predicting the success of Apple products.
What on earth makes you think that simply because someone lives next to an industrial or commercial park, their skills/availability/etc mean they'll have a job next door?!
That really is not how it works in the real world.
Now, with no geo-blocking, is it more likely that Netflix gets to show it in Italy, or that it DOESN'T get to show it in France?
Both.
In the short term, Netflix doesn't have a license for Italy, cannot distribute content to both countries as required by law, and so stops.
But from then on, all licenses are negotiated as EU-wide licenses. Every. Single. One. Because there's literally no point in negotiating a license for "Just France". So in the medium term (not even the long term, because Netflix has to get new licenses and can't operate without them, and the studios have to negotiate because they don't get money any more from Netflix) they end up with EU licenses instead.
Bonus: no more situations where license rights are held up by a single party that simply can't get its act in order in one country even though the same content is available elsewhere.
The only difference that results in (resulted in, it's getting better lately) is that BSD-licensed code gets used, while GPL'ed code doesn't get used, for commercial purposes
That's the theoretical world exposed by BSD license advocates, not the actual world where GPL'd software is present in (and often forms the bulk of) most smartphones, home routers, satellite boxes, modern TVs, cable boxes, satellite boxes, DVRs, streaming video sticks/boxes, etc.
To be honest, with the exception of fans of Apple who only buy iPhones, iTVs, etc, it's hard to understand how anyone could miss this. Most of the time the printed manual that came with the frickin' TV has two or three pages devoted to a print out of the GPL in small print, with Linux and Busybox identified as at least two of the firmware components licensed thusly.
Yes, there's a lot of software shipped under more liberal licenses that make it too, such as the Apache license. But specifically BSD... it's comparatively rarely seen these days. Which I guess speaks not only to the fact the GPL's give-users-the-same-rights-we-gave-you feature is not the anti-commercial deal breaker BSD advocates make it out to be, but presumably that the ecosystem that flourishes under the GPL ends up producing software better tailored to user needs. Which is not surprising - if you're after an OS for your router, you're more likely to get one if you work with others also building OSes for their routers, than if you work against them, hiding your changes as they hide their's, each of you reinventing square wheels.
That undoubtedly helped, but Linux based systems were already making headway into the mainstream at the time because:
1. The professionals who were paid to install and maintain large server systems were frustrated with Windows and its limitations, while doing a lot of tinkering with Linux based operating systems in their spare time. They were pushing it.
2. It was heavily used by ISPs and other Internet infrastructure companies in the late nineties.
By the time Windows finally got to a state where it could be argued it was a superior corporate solution (generally at the time XP started to be heavily pushed), a huge amount of mindshare was already with Linux based systems. IBM helped get it there, but it was heading in that direction already. The question is whether it would have gotten there without the support of IBM, Oracle, and Sun (yes, I know the latter wasn't overly enthusiastic, but JEE on GNU/Linux became standard enterprise infrastructure thanks to their support.)
I would counter it was that, and your history doesn't conflict with mine - it explains it.
It's true that MINIX was held back by the fact it had to be distributed as "Core system (from book) plus third party ports as patchsets", but that doesn't pertain as to why Torvalds wrote Linux, except in explaining why there was no ix386 version of MINIX to begin with.
The MINIX community maintained standard ports of MINIX to each architecture. To install MINIX you'd get the book, combine it with the port, and you'd have your system. Your WANG drive patch would have belonged in one of the ports, not in the core system (frustrating if the patch needed architectural changes as that meant there was no practical way to distribute it.)
It wasn't a particularly effective way of maintaining an operating system, and MINIX suffered as a result. And one way it suffered was in not having a standard ix386 kernel. Why Torvalds didn't port the MINIX kernel himself is something only he can answer - I'm sure there are valid technical reasons, and he may also have been frustrated with the community core+ports model, but I like to think he also wanted to scratch an itch, to figure out how a kernel worked and write one himself. And I'm glad he did.
I think the AC was just confused as Linux's origins are related to MINIX, even if it isn't a clone or shares any code.
From memory, Linux was Torvald's response to the fact MINIX remained a 16 bit operating system. Impatient, Torvald's created the Linux kernel presumably in part because he wanted to create a kernel, but in part to solve the missing 386 Minix issue.
The two were related, but no code from MINIX was present in Linux. As an example, the original Linux file system was a re-implementation of the MINIX file system. Linux's ext family of file systems came later. Early Linux based systems ran the MINIX userland, but this was replaced early on with GNU. It was the replacement with GNU that meant Linux could legally leave the MINIX community and become the kernel of a standalone operating system.
IIRC Linus's original announcement was on the MINIX mailing lists too.
...the one that seemed to be impossible to get rid of, that at least once PC in every office had, that would suddenly, several times a day, put up a pop-up announcing the PC was going to reboot in 30 seconds? (Was it Blaster, or was Blaster the easy-to-remove version?)
Yeah. Welcome to the new update regime for Windows 10 Home Edition...
Personally I wish no distro was set up to want you to use root... I have...less than fond... memories of torching everything in my Slackware systems by accident back when I used it in the late nineties.
After a temporary switch to Mac OS X in the early 2000s, I realized sudo was the way to go, and was very glad when I found modern distros reflected that.
Ubuntu isn't targeting people who need to feel like "teh lunix exparts".
Agree. It's actually aimed at a combination of newbies, and experienced *ix users. One should be protected from root at all costs. The other is experienced enough to know they should be too...
Registered Democrats in many areas of Florida in 2000 (and to a certain extent today) are Dixiecrats, not people to the left of the editorial columns in the Washington Post. They tend to vote Republican for everything except local politics. They may vote for a Democratic Senator, Congressman, or State Governor, but only if the candidate is a Dixiecrat too.
Surprisingly, with Chrome, if you enter your Google password in the Subject box of a new comment and then press the "Submit" button, the warning dialog comes up and your post won't get sent until you confirm it. Only discovered that because my Google password is (well, was) "systemd?".
Yeah I thought the summary's equation of "Protestors" and "Rioters" (headline uses the latter, main text the former, apparently referring to the same people - for the record, the number of protestors in Baltimore last week was some figure conservatively estimated in the tens of thousands; the number of rioters was less than 2,000 - probably much less, being made up largely of local gangs) was rather reflective of the kneejerk reaction against any politicial activity by "the masses" in this country.
The other day I mentioned the (thankfully debunked) neo-urban-legend about a nearby Florida sheriff saying it was OK to run over protestors if they get in your way to some people in the office. At least one was fully in favor, giving a whoop when he heard it.
I was brought up in the UK, moving to the US when I was 25. The idea of treating political protests as something horrific astounds me, it's normal activity over there, you'd expect it to be accepted and supported in the country that invented the first amendment. But apparently not.
Psychologists who collaborate with torturers are ethically complicit
Absolutely, which is obviously something you and I agree upon completely.
Boycotting the torturers is the only ethical stance here
If it is (and it isn't) then ethics be damned. The only moral stance is to do whatever is in your power to prevent torture from happening. Standing idly and refusing to intervene by is utterly reprehensible, even if it's an ethical one according to some code of ethics I'm unfamiliar with.
Well in fairness some modern operating system components that ship with Debian, such as recent GNOMEs, are transitioning (or have transitioned) to having systemd as a dependency. Yeah, you can "just not use GNOME", but over time more and more of the operating system will transition that way.
And it kinda ignores why systemd exists. Over time, I'd expect Debian to make itself more systemd dependent, as doing so allows Debian to introduce long awaited security and stability improvements by allowing it to transparently use cgroups and run unprivileged daemons that can listen to privileged ports, things that are not practical under sysvinit (though might be under Upstart.)
What I'd like to see is Hurd to introduce the functionality that systemd is reliant upon so it too can be ported.
The science is what the reviewer is supposed to review. Truth is that if it had happened the other way, this thread would consist entirely of people yelling "It's PC gone mad/SJWs suck/Feminists want to take away our computer games!"
For some reason, however, when a woman is shat upon for being a woman everyone's so eager to try to find excuses for the jerk who did it. I'm not seeing this as a positive trend.
I know nothing about the relationship between the APA and the CIA/FBI/TSA/NSA/GOP here, so it may all be terrible. But: there are reasons to cooperate with a body that might misuse your work that do not involve encouraging them to misuse it. One example might be if the advise offered was on how to get answers out of someone without torturing them.
One community that would, presumably, be very good at the whole knowing how to "Get information out of people without torturing them" would be psychologists (well, at least 43% of the time;-)).
Yes, I may be wrong here. But the truth is I'd rather wait until this report is published, than leap to assumptions.
If the system does NOT pay for itself over a reasonable period of time (and within the lifetime of the product warranty), you're splurging. Not spending wisely.
Define "pay for itself" again and you might realize the problem with your logic here. You're assuming this battery is purely about saving dollars.
This is essentially a device that replaces a back-up generator and provides a means to save money in other ways in the mean time. You appear to be looking at the latter without looking at the former, so comparing apples and oranges.
OK, but is it cheaper, once off-peak-usage/solar energy/etc savings are factored in, than a back-up generator? Again, apples and oranges applies here: a typical back-up generator requires regular, easily forgettable, maintenance, replacement of fuel, and has no way to forewarn you that if push comes to shove, it might fail when you need it most. A battery is a simpler design, requires no maintenance, and it's able to alert you when its capacity drops to a level that's likely to cause you problems if you ever need to use it. That additional functionality makes the battery superior to the point there's good reason to choose it over a gasoline engine even if it supposedly costs more dollars.
Concepts like ease of use, reliability, self-maintenance, etc, have value, and they can be the difference between something lacking them being undesirable at $400, and something having those qualities being very desirable at $3000.
I can't afford the battery right now - newish Dad, two mortgages, that kind of thing. But I'll tell you this: when I can, I'll be getting one for our home. I live in South Florida, where the hurricanes come on a regular basis. A practical back-up power supply is a wonderful thing, I'd love to have one.
I think like everyone on Slashdot my heart extends to the families of the passengers who died as the ship hit Mercury. I assume there were no survivors?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you're confusing having any agenda with having a specific agenda you happen to disagree with.
In this case the Journalist's bias is clear: they want eyeballs. "Minor transformer blow-out, no-one hurt" is not going to bring eyeballs. "Accident at Nuclear Power plant! Safety questioned of facility on New York City's doorstep" is.
Unfortunately not, the OP is right. I was tempted to bookmark a few (at least one was predicting the US swamped with infections within two weeks) so I could ridicule them later, but decided against it because (1) that would be cruel especially in the light of the subject matter, and (2) because people would start bringing up my record in predicting the success of Apple products.
What on earth makes you think that simply because someone lives next to an industrial or commercial park, their skills/availability/etc mean they'll have a job next door?!
That really is not how it works in the real world.
Both.
In the short term, Netflix doesn't have a license for Italy, cannot distribute content to both countries as required by law, and so stops.
But from then on, all licenses are negotiated as EU-wide licenses. Every. Single. One. Because there's literally no point in negotiating a license for "Just France". So in the medium term (not even the long term, because Netflix has to get new licenses and can't operate without them, and the studios have to negotiate because they don't get money any more from Netflix) they end up with EU licenses instead.
Bonus: no more situations where license rights are held up by a single party that simply can't get its act in order in one country even though the same content is available elsewhere.
That's the theoretical world exposed by BSD license advocates, not the actual world where GPL'd software is present in (and often forms the bulk of) most smartphones, home routers, satellite boxes, modern TVs, cable boxes, satellite boxes, DVRs, streaming video sticks/boxes, etc.
To be honest, with the exception of fans of Apple who only buy iPhones, iTVs, etc, it's hard to understand how anyone could miss this. Most of the time the printed manual that came with the frickin' TV has two or three pages devoted to a print out of the GPL in small print, with Linux and Busybox identified as at least two of the firmware components licensed thusly.
Yes, there's a lot of software shipped under more liberal licenses that make it too, such as the Apache license. But specifically BSD... it's comparatively rarely seen these days. Which I guess speaks not only to the fact the GPL's give-users-the-same-rights-we-gave-you feature is not the anti-commercial deal breaker BSD advocates make it out to be, but presumably that the ecosystem that flourishes under the GPL ends up producing software better tailored to user needs. Which is not surprising - if you're after an OS for your router, you're more likely to get one if you work with others also building OSes for their routers, than if you work against them, hiding your changes as they hide their's, each of you reinventing square wheels.
That undoubtedly helped, but Linux based systems were already making headway into the mainstream at the time because:
1. The professionals who were paid to install and maintain large server systems were frustrated with Windows and its limitations, while doing a lot of tinkering with Linux based operating systems in their spare time. They were pushing it.
2. It was heavily used by ISPs and other Internet infrastructure companies in the late nineties.
By the time Windows finally got to a state where it could be argued it was a superior corporate solution (generally at the time XP started to be heavily pushed), a huge amount of mindshare was already with Linux based systems. IBM helped get it there, but it was heading in that direction already. The question is whether it would have gotten there without the support of IBM, Oracle, and Sun (yes, I know the latter wasn't overly enthusiastic, but JEE on GNU/Linux became standard enterprise infrastructure thanks to their support.)
I would counter it was that, and your history doesn't conflict with mine - it explains it.
It's true that MINIX was held back by the fact it had to be distributed as "Core system (from book) plus third party ports as patchsets", but that doesn't pertain as to why Torvalds wrote Linux, except in explaining why there was no ix386 version of MINIX to begin with.
The MINIX community maintained standard ports of MINIX to each architecture. To install MINIX you'd get the book, combine it with the port, and you'd have your system. Your WANG drive patch would have belonged in one of the ports, not in the core system (frustrating if the patch needed architectural changes as that meant there was no practical way to distribute it.)
It wasn't a particularly effective way of maintaining an operating system, and MINIX suffered as a result. And one way it suffered was in not having a standard ix386 kernel. Why Torvalds didn't port the MINIX kernel himself is something only he can answer - I'm sure there are valid technical reasons, and he may also have been frustrated with the community core+ports model, but I like to think he also wanted to scratch an itch, to figure out how a kernel worked and write one himself. And I'm glad he did.
I think the AC was just confused as Linux's origins are related to MINIX, even if it isn't a clone or shares any code.
From memory, Linux was Torvald's response to the fact MINIX remained a 16 bit operating system. Impatient, Torvald's created the Linux kernel presumably in part because he wanted to create a kernel, but in part to solve the missing 386 Minix issue.
The two were related, but no code from MINIX was present in Linux. As an example, the original Linux file system was a re-implementation of the MINIX file system. Linux's ext family of file systems came later. Early Linux based systems ran the MINIX userland, but this was replaced early on with GNU. It was the replacement with GNU that meant Linux could legally leave the MINIX community and become the kernel of a standalone operating system.
IIRC Linus's original announcement was on the MINIX mailing lists too.
That's good to hear. Still don't want anything rebooting without my permission though!
Yeah. Welcome to the new update regime for Windows 10 Home Edition...
OK, that's the bit that I was missing, the keys were fake. Makes sense now, thanks!
I understand "one key, many IP addresses" as being suggestive of licence violations, but why would "many keys, one IP address" be?
Personally I wish no distro was set up to want you to use root... I have...less than fond... memories of torching everything in my Slackware systems by accident back when I used it in the late nineties.
After a temporary switch to Mac OS X in the early 2000s, I realized sudo was the way to go, and was very glad when I found modern distros reflected that.
Agree. It's actually aimed at a combination of newbies, and experienced *ix users. One should be protected from root at all costs. The other is experienced enough to know they should be too...
Registered Democrats in many areas of Florida in 2000 (and to a certain extent today) are Dixiecrats, not people to the left of the editorial columns in the Washington Post. They tend to vote Republican for everything except local politics. They may vote for a Democratic Senator, Congressman, or State Governor, but only if the candidate is a Dixiecrat too.
I'm not entirely sure why it's considered terrible by the average Slashdotter to ask someone, or a group of people, to stop being an asshole.
Surprisingly, with Chrome, if you enter your Google password in the Subject box of a new comment and then press the "Submit" button, the warning dialog comes up and your post won't get sent until you confirm it. Only discovered that because my Google password is (well, was) "systemd?".
Yeah I thought the summary's equation of "Protestors" and "Rioters" (headline uses the latter, main text the former, apparently referring to the same people - for the record, the number of protestors in Baltimore last week was some figure conservatively estimated in the tens of thousands; the number of rioters was less than 2,000 - probably much less, being made up largely of local gangs) was rather reflective of the kneejerk reaction against any politicial activity by "the masses" in this country.
The other day I mentioned the (thankfully debunked) neo-urban-legend about a nearby Florida sheriff saying it was OK to run over protestors if they get in your way to some people in the office. At least one was fully in favor, giving a whoop when he heard it.
I was brought up in the UK, moving to the US when I was 25. The idea of treating political protests as something horrific astounds me, it's normal activity over there, you'd expect it to be accepted and supported in the country that invented the first amendment. But apparently not.
Absolutely, which is obviously something you and I agree upon completely.
If it is (and it isn't) then ethics be damned. The only moral stance is to do whatever is in your power to prevent torture from happening. Standing idly and refusing to intervene by is utterly reprehensible, even if it's an ethical one according to some code of ethics I'm unfamiliar with.
Well in fairness some modern operating system components that ship with Debian, such as recent GNOMEs, are transitioning (or have transitioned) to having systemd as a dependency. Yeah, you can "just not use GNOME", but over time more and more of the operating system will transition that way.
And it kinda ignores why systemd exists. Over time, I'd expect Debian to make itself more systemd dependent, as doing so allows Debian to introduce long awaited security and stability improvements by allowing it to transparently use cgroups and run unprivileged daemons that can listen to privileged ports, things that are not practical under sysvinit (though might be under Upstart.)
What I'd like to see is Hurd to introduce the functionality that systemd is reliant upon so it too can be ported.
Then if that were her reason, she'd be wrong.
The science is what the reviewer is supposed to review. Truth is that if it had happened the other way, this thread would consist entirely of people yelling "It's PC gone mad/SJWs suck/Feminists want to take away our computer games!"
For some reason, however, when a woman is shat upon for being a woman everyone's so eager to try to find excuses for the jerk who did it. I'm not seeing this as a positive trend.
I know nothing about the relationship between the APA and the CIA/FBI/TSA/NSA/GOP here, so it may all be terrible. But: there are reasons to cooperate with a body that might misuse your work that do not involve encouraging them to misuse it. One example might be if the advise offered was on how to get answers out of someone without torturing them.
One community that would, presumably, be very good at the whole knowing how to "Get information out of people without torturing them" would be psychologists (well, at least 43% of the time ;-)).
Yes, I may be wrong here. But the truth is I'd rather wait until this report is published, than leap to assumptions.
You import your home CA into your browsers, which you should be doing anyway.
Define "pay for itself" again and you might realize the problem with your logic here. You're assuming this battery is purely about saving dollars.
This is essentially a device that replaces a back-up generator and provides a means to save money in other ways in the mean time. You appear to be looking at the latter without looking at the former, so comparing apples and oranges.
OK, but is it cheaper, once off-peak-usage/solar energy/etc savings are factored in, than a back-up generator? Again, apples and oranges applies here: a typical back-up generator requires regular, easily forgettable, maintenance, replacement of fuel, and has no way to forewarn you that if push comes to shove, it might fail when you need it most. A battery is a simpler design, requires no maintenance, and it's able to alert you when its capacity drops to a level that's likely to cause you problems if you ever need to use it. That additional functionality makes the battery superior to the point there's good reason to choose it over a gasoline engine even if it supposedly costs more dollars.
Concepts like ease of use, reliability, self-maintenance, etc, have value, and they can be the difference between something lacking them being undesirable at $400, and something having those qualities being very desirable at $3000.
I can't afford the battery right now - newish Dad, two mortgages, that kind of thing. But I'll tell you this: when I can, I'll be getting one for our home. I live in South Florida, where the hurricanes come on a regular basis. A practical back-up power supply is a wonderful thing, I'd love to have one.
I think like everyone on Slashdot my heart extends to the families of the passengers who died as the ship hit Mercury. I assume there were no survivors?
Yes I believe I saw some documentaries produced by Warner Brothers demonstrating this very technology, demonstrated by Doctors B. Bunny and E. Fudd.