Of course we wouldn't all be singing kumbaya, unless Russia caused us to fight amongst ourselves. Russia took advantage of the existing discord by attempting to amplify it. Hitting us where we're weak, so to speak.
I don't suppose we can ever measure exactly how effective their campaign was - and it probably doesn't matter. We do know from history that such tactics are part of a strategy package that has taken down governments in other countries. It seems to me, it's more important to figure out how to work together, to resolve differences instead of scream about them, than to figure out exactly how much of our current problem is due to Russian propaganda.
We *should* acknowledge that they attempt such propaganda to so domestic discord within their rivals, but more importantly let's try to reduce the infighting and make our nation the best it can be.
I wrote software like this 20 years ago. When I wasn't busy writing website functionality in Perl:)
My software operated so slowly that you could sit and watch it work. It looked like someone was using a pen to draw over all of the background. You'd click anywhere on the background and it took off like a Roomba, drawing white until it detected the edge of an object.
It would often get halfway done, then get to the one spot where the border between the foreground and background wasn't readily distinguishable, then cross that point and start deleting the foreground.
With a bit more work (and perhaps a "rewind" button) it probably would have worked well enough to be very useful to a lot of people. I kinda wish I had improved it enough for it to become well-known.
There is no such thing as a 5G network, or 4G, 3G, 2G, etc. The entire wireless network was paid for in the 1980s / early 1990s and everything after that has been nothing but profit for the greedy capitalists. I know this because I read it on Slashdot.
The billions of dollars that the wireless carriers spend on network upgrades every year are just pretend. Everything was already paid for by that ten million bucks back in 1988. Slashdot comments tell me so.
Both sides of the aisle are overly self-righteous.
R: There are clearly some problems with our immigration laws. Let's fix them. Just having bureaucracts ignore whichever laws they fell like ignoring today doesn't seem like a good idea. We should probably decide as a country what the law should be, instead of individual politicians ignoring the law and doing whatever they want.
D: You hate brown people! You're a piece of shit racist!
We have one of the most senior Democrats in Congress, Maxine Waters (first elected in 1991) invoking God to tell people to physically assault conservatives in public:
-- "have protesters taking up at their house, who say, 'No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep'... God is on OUR side! On the side of the children. On the side of what's right. On the side of what's honorable. And so, let's stay the course. Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere -- Maxine Waters, D California
This isn't helpful for discussing the best policies for our nation.
> I don't know where you are getting this from, but Windows NT 3.1 was launched with multi-user support
"Multi-user" doesn't mean "you can log in before you have access to all the files on the whole system". That's a password-protected system, it's not a multi-user system. A multi-user system is one that multiple people can use at the same time and they don't have access to each other's stuff, and can't screw up the other person's stuff.
Here's one of many articles written at the time about Microsoft announcing they were buying multi-user and network access software from Citrix, in order to add these features to NT 5.0
Here's one of many articles written at the time about Microsoft announcing they were buying multi-user and network access software from Citrix, in order to add these features to NT 5.0
I had Trumpet. I used it to connect to network devices and servers. For my purposes at least, that doesn't mean it *is* networking equipment. I wouldn't it as the platform to host my customers web sites.
You put floats on a Cessna. It's still a plane, not a ship.
> i wonder if the radical right and radical left really control the US agenda in terms of a voice of reason.
Yes, they do. See any discussion on Slashdot for proof. For even more radical talk see any discussion on any other site. When is the last time you read a comment here that said "good point, I hadn't thought of it that way before"? How about "I understand your concern, and that's a valid concern. However I foresee a potential problem with your proposed solution..." We just throw stones at each other from our radical left or right viewpoints and don't even have a real discussion anymore.
Yes, I get caught up in it too. Once in a while I acknowledge a good point made by someone arguing an opposite viewpoint, but most days I don't. When I do, often someone comments, suprised that I actually read the other person's post and thought about their point of view, because that's unusual these days. Including unusual for me to do it, even trying.
Part of that is because most of our media is so partisan. If you mainly watch CNN, the news you see every day will make sure you become a raging liberal, and start to hate conservatives. If you watch or read Fox, it's pretty hard not to become a raging conservative, given the news they show you every day.
It's sad. We really lose out by not taking the time to understand the other person's viewpoint and really thinking about the value it has, and how to work together based on the end goals that we all want. Often, we have very different ideas about the best means to accomplish something, the best policy, and don't even realize we both are wanting to accomplish the same end goal. We just disagree on how to get there.
If we could remember we're working toward the same end goals, things like economic prosperity, that opens up an opportunity to do something really cool that both brings us together and finds the best solutions.
First agree on some metrics that will later tell us (roughly) whether a policy worked. Then find two or more states that are implementing different policies and check the metric in a year or two to see which one worked better. With 50 states in the US, it's often not hard to find five or even ten states doing it this way, and five or ten states doing it that way. Agree on the measurement and check back in a year to see which approach worked best.
Maybe you can read it the third and fourth time I say it:
>> Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.
"Oh that's bullshit, Clinton polled better than Trump", you say. Which is exactly what I said - twice. Derp derp indeed.
As I said, during the primary season (February and March), Ted Cruz beat into by 3-5% in the RCP average. Marco Rubio had her beat 47% to 43% https://www.realclearpolitics....
> the sharing of data, users, groups, security, applications, and other networking functions
Windows STILL isn't designed for sharing applications. Windows NT didn't share users, groups, and security 20 years ago. Active directory came out with Windows 2000.
So of the five things mentioned in the Wikipedia definition, Windows did ONE, and that very poorly. So I'll be glad to use the definition you found and call it 20% network OS. Last time I checked, which admittedly was a few years ago, file locking and some other basic functions still don't work reliably on NTFS, but we'll pretend it was solid and give NT a score of 20% on being a network OS.
> Russia funded every divisive movement they could. Black Lives Matter, Muslims for Hillary, etc. Their purpose is psy ops to sow derision in the populace - the same purpose they've had when they've done the exact same thing for the past 75 years. We do the same.
Exactly. Russia is trying to beat the US, not Clinton. They want us fighting with each other instead of beating them at whatever. We just got new confirmation that Russia was running Black Lives Matter ads. Whatever gets Americans fighting Americans, whatever divides us.
> It had zero impact in the election's outcome though. This is all about providing an excuse for Clinton's loss to make her 2020 run more palatable.
Clinton was a really bad candidate, with terrible poll numbers. Of the six "finalists" for the Republican nomination, five of the six beat Clinton in the polls. Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.
I think the Russian ads probably did what they were designed to do and not much else - they made the election period more partisan, encouraged us to be even less unified, and probably didn't materially affect the election, but there's no way to be 100% sure of what would have happened if things had been different. Wen might have even had a more moderate, less polarizing candidate win. Doubtful though.
> Disclaimer: I live in San Jose, California, one of the brownest cities in America.
Did you mean whitest? According to the census, the entire state of Texas is 39% of *Mexican* descent, then add all of central America on top of that. Providence, Rhode Island has a higher percentage of Hispanics than San Jose does. Bridgeport, Connecticut is more Hispanic than San Jose. If San Jose were in Massachusetts, it would be the second-brownest city in Massachusetts.
> I believe immigration is a good thing
I've never heard anyone disagree with that. The question of the day is whether, when we make laws about immigration (or any other subject), we should follow those laws, or just pretend they don't exist. Republicans pretty consistently say don't make a law if you don't plan on following it. Follow the law, and if the law needs to be changed, change it. Democrats go back and forth on this about four years. In his first term, Obama was for strong enforcement of immigration law. In his second term, it was his official policy to unconstitutionally ignore the law. Hillary voted for a wall on the Mexican border, then later when she was invited on Univision she ridiculed the plan she had supported a couple years earlier. What's your stand on that, should we as a country DECIDE on immigration law, or should each politician do whatever they feel like today, ignoring the law?
It was in Windows 5.0 that Microsoft announced a deal with Citrix to integrate parts of the Citrix app into Windows. The Citrix application code would add a) separate users b) remove access, Microsoft announced.
So none of this is true: > Windows NT was already pretty mature, and was built from the ground up to be part of a network, to support multiple users
It was designed as a local desktop operating system, not a network operating system, and even in 5.0 "multi-year" was a third-party application tacked on to hide other users' files in File Explorer. To see files in the other person's directory, you had to use the command prompt, write a script, or cleverly navigate to C:\ first in Explorer. Same with remote access - a third party app tacked on in version 5. A network operating system is one that *assumes* use is over the network by default. You can recognize them because local access is via 127.0.0.1. CUPS is a printing and scanning system for network operating systems. It runs on port 631, so you connect to whatever-machine:631. If the print spool you want to use happens to be on the same machine you logged into, that would be localhost:631. X11 is a windowing system for network operating systems, it runs port 6000, so to run a program local machine you use localhost:6000 - precisely the same way you'd run it on any other machine on the network.
Setting the graphical shell to hide the other guy's "My Documents" folder is not what makes a multi-user, network OS.
> After all, the point of using Linux is to not use Windows!
Not for me. The point of using Linux, for me, is to use good software. Originally, almost 20 years ago, the reason I used Linux was because I needed a network operating system that had.... At the time, Windows was very much not a network operating system. It was Personal Computer OS that until recently was called Disk Operating System to distinguish it from multi-user network operating systems. So it wasn't even an option on the list. It wasn't even the right category.
A lot of corporations are trapped on Windows. Vendor lock-in is real. WSL makes it less urgent for them to get off Windows - they can run good software and legacy Windows desktop stuff together on the same machine.
Poettering announced today that from now on systemd will include an integrated kernel as part of systemd. Systemd-kernel is a mostly compatible replacement for the Linux kernel, but is a hybrid between Linux and MS DOS 2.0.
The kernel integration was fast-tracked, having previously been scheduled to occur only after the integration of the new systemd-officesuite and renaming of systemd to Officed.
Responding to criticism that systemd just keeps getting bigger, Poettering pointed out that some things are actually being removed. Specifically, they plan to separate out the systemd / Officed init system and make that a separate project. The newly independent init system will be called SysFkdInit.
These have been around for over 50 years too. Bet you've never ridden in one, for the same reason you don't normally eat dinner with a Swiss Army Knife.
You've come to a correct conclusion regarding individual action, while being confused about some basic terminology.
You also seem to missed part of what I wrote, stating I didn't say anything about investment when in fact I did. Remember "if ten of them but all the tools and build the factory"? Yeah, that's investment.
> [Labor] But that's not the only source of income, or even primary source for the highest earners.
You are 100% correct that for the vast majority of high earners, the earnings are multiplied by investment - by not spending all their money the moment they get it, but by delayed gratification. That's hugely important for anyone who wants to ever be financially comfortable.
There are two reasons why. The amount of labor you can put into an enterprise is limited. You can work about 40 hours per week, maybe 60. The amount you can invest us unlimited - you can grow your money, then grow the growth, where a little investment becomes more, then since it's more, there is even more growth, in a cycle of exploding wealth. It literally grows exponentially, the math number "e" for exponential refers to this type of growth.
The other reason is that human nature is wired toward short-term thinking, instant gratification, compared to the natural gains from delayed gratification. Whether it's eating crappy for, ditching class, or goofing off reading Slashdot while we're supposed to be working, human nature tends to favor getting a little bit now rather than getting a lot later. Those who overcome this desire for instant gratification, making investment available for use, are well-rewarded vs their peers.
> There is also income via rents. Which has many forms, interest on borrowed money, dividends to investors, and rent for use of property.
You might want to look up what economic rent is. Rent applies to items for which there is a hard limit, nobody can make more. That may be natural, as in the case of land, or artificial, in the case of taxi medallions and such. Governments in certain places LOVE to put these artificial limits in place so there donors can extract rent.
There is no hard limit on money, investment, capital. There is a LOT more capital today than there was 100 years ago - probably ten times as much. You can build capital equipment yourself in your garage, if you're so inclined. Therefore there can be no rent, the cost of capital is controlled by supply and demand. Rent on capital would be possible only if government limited your ability to invest.
That's no big - one doesn't need to know much about economic theory as long as you understand the actionable conclusion - investment is how you get rich. Our tax system gives an extra bonus there, and employer 401k matching adds another 50% or so increase.
Money represents economic value. "Making money" is a shorthand way of saying "creating economic value". Someone who "makes $30,000" is someone who produces finding valued at $30,000.
Based on your comment, you might be surprised to learn people are not in fact born with $10 million shoved up their ass which then "went somewhere", to use your words. The balance, the "thermodynamics" is that their economic income matches their economic outflow. If you build tables in your garage, and each week someo, someone buys one of your tables for $500, your income is $500 precisely because your outflow is $500 worth of table.
If your weekly output is "played 45 video games", your weekly income will have the exact same economic value as what you produced - zero.
Btw that doesn't change if you and a friend make the tables together, or if you and 100 friends do. If 90 friends build tables and ten friends but all the tools and build the shop, they'll get income equal to the market value of what they did.
If someone's income is $30,000 and someone else's income is $50,000, that's because one person produced stuff with an economic value of $30,000 and the other person $50,000. The first person didn't misplace $20,000, they simply didn't create as much.
State A: Neighborhood 1 average income $100,000 Neighborhood 2 average income $50,000 Inequality = $50,000
State B: Neighborhood 1 average income $100,000 Neighborhood 2 average income $30,000 Inequality = $70,000
Having a bunch of broke people mathematically means you'll have higher inequality, if you also have anyone doing well.
The sane thing to do is for state B to look at state A and ask "how we can help our lower income people make $50,000 like they do in the other state? What is state A doing that makes their lower-income tier earn more than out lower-income tier?"
Your "solution" is to ask "how can we harm our high-earners so they can only make $30,000, making everyone equally poor?". Please stay in California.
I didn't know about their unusual policy of not advertising unrelated products, but they have advertised products related to Mad, and those ads are subject to truth in advertising laws. The point is we don't have similar "truth in articles" laws that allow the government to come after you for printing things it doesn't agree are true. Having ads doesn't mean the articles have to be true.
(Though if you engage in outright libel, the *victim* can sue.)
My point is that when 12 million people watched an episode of Game of Thrones, that means it was transferred 12 million times. It wasn't encoded 12 million times. Sure a scene might be encoded 12 times, then each encoded copy was downloaded a million times.
If I watch a 7Mbps stream of GoT, a million other people watched the same 7Mbps stream. That 7Mbps version only had to be encoded once, for a million viewers, so it would be crazy to skimp on a dollar of encoding time.
Mad Magazine has ads. The Onion has ads. The *ads* are held to a certain "truth in advertising" standard. That does NOT mean the stories in Mad magazine have to be approved by the administration, or any other government entity.
That's true, one can decide to spend less CPU encoding.
Having said that, when widely comparing services such as Dish Network vs Comcast vs Frontier, that part would be different only if they are very stupid. For a given level of quality, the higher CPU encoding gives lower bandwidth. Some of us may be used to thinking of higher quality if it were the same bandwidth, but the flip side of that is it also means lower bandwidth for whatever quality level they accept.
Since they are going to transfer the stream to millions of users, the bandwidth difference is multiplied by a million for them. It's a no-brainer to use the CPU to encode well ONCE in order to save on bandwidth a million times. I don't know if I wrote that clearly. If you're encoding once and transferring to one destination, you might not spend the CPU to make the bitrate low / quality high. Given they are encoding once and transferring a million times, it would be moronic of them to spend thousands of dollars more on bandwidth in order to save pennies on CPU.
If we assume they aren't utter morons, they'll all spend the CPU time to get the lowest bandwidth they can for the level of quality they find acceptable. That's another way of saying that they'll have the best quality they can for the bitrate try used.
That's what I was going to say. Compare to competitors using the same codec and more or less bitrate = quality. It's not a PERFECT measure, but it's pretty good and dead simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course we wouldn't all be singing kumbaya, unless Russia caused us to fight amongst ourselves. Russia took advantage of the existing discord by attempting to amplify it. Hitting us where we're weak, so to speak.
I don't suppose we can ever measure exactly how effective their campaign was - and it probably doesn't matter. We do know from history that such tactics are part of a strategy package that has taken down governments in other countries. It seems to me, it's more important to figure out how to work together, to resolve differences instead of scream about them, than to figure out exactly how much of our current problem is due to Russian propaganda.
We *should* acknowledge that they attempt such propaganda to so domestic discord within their rivals, but more importantly let's try to reduce the infighting and make our nation the best it can be.
I wrote software like this 20 years ago. When I wasn't busy writing website functionality in Perl :)
My software operated so slowly that you could sit and watch it work. It looked like someone was using a pen to draw over all of the background. You'd click anywhere on the background and it took off like a Roomba, drawing white until it detected the edge of an object.
It would often get halfway done, then get to the one spot where the border between the foreground and background wasn't readily distinguishable, then cross that point and start deleting the foreground.
With a bit more work (and perhaps a "rewind" button) it probably would have worked well enough to be very useful to a lot of people. I kinda wish I had improved it enough for it to become well-known.
There is no such thing as a 5G network, or 4G, 3G, 2G, etc.
The entire wireless network was paid for in the 1980s / early 1990s and everything after that has been nothing but profit for the greedy capitalists. I know this because I read it on Slashdot.
The billions of dollars that the wireless carriers spend on network upgrades every year are just pretend. Everything was already paid for by that ten million bucks back in 1988. Slashdot comments tell me so.
Both sides of the aisle are overly self-righteous.
R: There are clearly some problems with our immigration laws. Let's fix them. Just having bureaucracts ignore whichever laws they fell like ignoring today doesn't seem like a good idea. We should probably decide as a country what the law should be, instead of individual politicians ignoring the law and doing whatever they want.
D: You hate brown people! You're a piece of shit racist!
We have one of the most senior Democrats in Congress, Maxine Waters (first elected in 1991) invoking God to tell people to physically assault conservatives in public:
-- ...
"have protesters taking up at their house, who say, 'No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep'
God is on OUR side! On the side of the children. On the side of what's right. On the side of what's honorable.
And so, let's stay the course. Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere
--
Maxine Waters, D California
This isn't helpful for discussing the best policies for our nation.
> I don't know where you are getting this from, but Windows NT 3.1 was launched with multi-user support
"Multi-user" doesn't mean "you can log in before you have access to all the files on the whole system". That's a password-protected system, it's not a multi-user system. A multi-user system is one that multiple people can use at the same time and they don't have access to each other's stuff, and can't screw up the other person's stuff.
Here's one of many articles written at the time about Microsoft announcing they were buying multi-user and network access software from Citrix, in order to add these features to NT 5.0
https://books.google.com/books...
Here's one of many articles written at the time about Microsoft announcing they were buying multi-user and network access software from Citrix, in order to add these features to NT 5.0
https://books.google.com/books...
I had Trumpet. I used it to connect to network devices and servers. For my purposes at least, that doesn't mean it *is* networking equipment. I wouldn't it as the platform to host my customers web sites.
You put floats on a Cessna. It's still a plane, not a ship.
> i wonder if the radical right and radical left really control the US agenda in terms of a voice of reason.
Yes, they do. See any discussion on Slashdot for proof. For even more radical talk see any discussion on any other site. When is the last time you read a comment here that said "good point, I hadn't thought of it that way before"? How about "I understand your concern, and that's a valid concern. However I foresee a potential problem with your proposed solution ..." We just throw stones at each other from our radical left or right viewpoints and don't even have a real discussion anymore.
Yes, I get caught up in it too. Once in a while I acknowledge a good point made by someone arguing an opposite viewpoint, but most days I don't. When I do, often someone comments, suprised that I actually read the other person's post and thought about their point of view, because that's unusual these days. Including unusual for me to do it, even trying.
Part of that is because most of our media is so partisan. If you mainly watch CNN, the news you see every day will make sure you become a raging liberal, and start to hate conservatives. If you watch or read Fox, it's pretty hard not to become a raging conservative, given the news they show you every day.
It's sad. We really lose out by not taking the time to understand the other person's viewpoint and really thinking about the value it has, and how to work together based on the end goals that we all want. Often, we have very different ideas about the best means to accomplish something, the best policy, and don't even realize we both are wanting to accomplish the same end goal. We just disagree on how to get there.
If we could remember we're working toward the same end goals, things like economic prosperity, that opens up an opportunity to do something really cool that both brings us together and finds the best solutions.
First agree on some metrics that will later tell us (roughly) whether a policy worked. Then find two or more states that are implementing different policies and check the metric in a year or two to see which one worked better. With 50 states in the US, it's often not hard to find five or even ten states doing it this way, and five or ten states doing it that way. Agree on the measurement and check back in a year to see which approach worked best.
Maybe you can read it the third and fourth time I say it:
>> Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.
"Oh that's bullshit, Clinton polled better than Trump", you say. Which is exactly what I said - twice. Derp derp indeed.
As I said, during the primary season (February and March), Ted Cruz beat into by 3-5% in the RCP average.
Marco Rubio had her beat 47% to 43%
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Kasich beat Clinton 48% to 41% - a whopping 7.4% lead
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Again, (for the fifth time) Republicans chose the only candidate who had a shot at losing to Clinton.
Copy-pasting from your link:
> the sharing of data, users, groups, security, applications, and other networking functions
Windows STILL isn't designed for sharing applications. Windows NT didn't share users, groups, and security 20 years ago. Active directory came out with Windows 2000.
So of the five things mentioned in the Wikipedia definition, Windows did ONE, and that very poorly. So I'll be glad to use the definition you found and call it 20% network OS. Last time I checked, which admittedly was a few years ago, file locking and some other basic functions still don't work reliably on NTFS, but we'll pretend it was solid and give NT a score of 20% on being a network OS.
> Russia funded every divisive movement they could. Black Lives Matter, Muslims for Hillary, etc. Their purpose is psy ops to sow derision in the populace - the same purpose they've had when they've done the exact same thing for the past 75 years. We do the same.
Exactly. Russia is trying to beat the US, not Clinton. They want us fighting with each other instead of beating them at whatever. We just got new confirmation that Russia was running Black Lives Matter ads. Whatever gets Americans fighting Americans, whatever divides us.
> It had zero impact in the election's outcome though. This is all about providing an excuse for Clinton's loss to make her 2020 run more palatable.
Clinton was a really bad candidate, with terrible poll numbers. Of the six "finalists" for the Republican nomination, five of the six beat Clinton in the polls. Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.
I think the Russian ads probably did what they were designed to do and not much else - they made the election period more partisan, encouraged us to be even less unified, and probably didn't materially affect the election, but there's no way to be 100% sure of what would have happened if things had been different. Wen might have even had a more moderate, less polarizing candidate win. Doubtful though.
> Disclaimer: I live in San Jose, California, one of the brownest cities in America.
Did you mean whitest? According to the census, the entire state of Texas is 39% of *Mexican* descent, then add all of central America on top of that. Providence, Rhode Island has a higher percentage of Hispanics than San Jose does. Bridgeport, Connecticut is more Hispanic than San Jose. If San Jose were in Massachusetts, it would be the second-brownest city in Massachusetts.
> I believe immigration is a good thing
I've never heard anyone disagree with that. The question of the day is whether, when we make laws about immigration (or any other subject), we should follow those laws, or just pretend they don't exist. Republicans pretty consistently say don't make a law if you don't plan on following it. Follow the law, and if the law needs to be changed, change it. Democrats go back and forth on this about four years. In his first term, Obama was for strong enforcement of immigration law. In his second term, it was his official policy to unconstitutionally ignore the law. Hillary voted for a wall on the Mexican border, then later when she was invited on Univision she ridiculed the plan she had supported a couple years earlier. What's your stand on that, should we as a country DECIDE on immigration law, or should each politician do whatever they feel like today, ignoring the law?
It was in Windows 5.0 that Microsoft announced a deal with Citrix to integrate parts of the Citrix app into Windows. The Citrix application code would add a) separate users b) remove access, Microsoft announced.
So none of this is true:
> Windows NT was already pretty mature, and was built from the ground up to be part of a network, to support multiple users
It was designed as a local desktop operating system, not a network operating system, and even in 5.0 "multi-year" was a third-party application tacked on to hide other users' files in File Explorer. To see files in the other person's directory, you had to use the command prompt, write a script, or cleverly navigate to C:\ first in Explorer. Same with remote access - a third party app tacked on in version 5. A network operating system is one that *assumes* use is over the network by default. You can recognize them because local access is via 127.0.0.1. CUPS is a printing and scanning system for network operating systems. It runs on port 631, so you connect to whatever-machine:631. If the print spool you want to use happens to be on the same machine you logged into, that would be localhost:631. X11 is a windowing system for network operating systems, it runs port 6000, so to run a program local machine you use localhost:6000 - precisely the same way you'd run it on any other machine on the network.
Setting the graphical shell to hide the other guy's "My Documents" folder is not what makes a multi-user, network OS.
> After all, the point of using Linux is to not use Windows!
Not for me. The point of using Linux, for me, is to use good software. Originally, almost 20 years ago, the reason I used Linux was because I needed a network operating system that had .... At the time, Windows was very much not a network operating system. It was Personal Computer OS that until recently was called Disk Operating System to distinguish it from multi-user network operating systems. So it wasn't even an option on the list. It wasn't even the right category.
A lot of corporations are trapped on Windows. Vendor lock-in is real. WSL makes it less urgent for them to get off Windows - they can run good software and legacy Windows desktop stuff together on the same machine.
Poettering announced today that from now on systemd will include an integrated kernel as part of systemd. Systemd-kernel is a mostly compatible replacement for the Linux kernel, but is a hybrid between Linux and MS DOS 2.0.
The kernel integration was fast-tracked, having previously been scheduled to occur only after the integration of the new systemd-officesuite and renaming of systemd to Officed.
Responding to criticism that systemd just keeps getting bigger, Poettering pointed out that some things are actually being removed. Specifically, they plan to separate out the systemd / Officed init system and make that a separate project. The newly independent init system will be called SysFkdInit.
Don't you hate it when you open the tap and all the stuff in the room gets sucked into the faucet?
Of course that's not what happens, water pipes are under pressure, so when there is a leak water seeps OUT, "stuff" doesn't seep in.
These have been around for over 50 years too. Bet you've never ridden in one, for the same reason you don't normally eat dinner with a Swiss Army Knife.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
You've come to a correct conclusion regarding individual action, while being confused about some basic terminology.
You also seem to missed part of what I wrote, stating I didn't say anything about investment when in fact I did. Remember "if ten of them but all the tools and build the factory"? Yeah, that's investment.
> [Labor] But that's not the only source of income, or even primary source for the highest earners.
You are 100% correct that for the vast majority of high earners, the earnings are multiplied by investment - by not spending all their money the moment they get it, but by delayed gratification. That's hugely important for anyone who wants to ever be financially comfortable.
There are two reasons why. The amount of labor you can put into an enterprise is limited. You can work about 40 hours per week, maybe 60. The amount you can invest us unlimited - you can grow your money, then grow the growth, where a little investment becomes more, then since it's more, there is even more growth, in a cycle of exploding wealth. It literally grows exponentially, the math number "e" for exponential refers to this type of growth.
The other reason is that human nature is wired toward short-term thinking, instant gratification, compared to the natural gains from delayed gratification. Whether it's eating crappy for, ditching class, or goofing off reading Slashdot while we're supposed to be working, human nature tends to favor getting a little bit now rather than getting a lot later. Those who overcome this desire for instant gratification, making investment available for use, are well-rewarded vs their peers.
> There is also income via rents. Which has many forms, interest on borrowed money, dividends to investors, and rent for use of property.
You might want to look up what economic rent is. Rent applies to items for which there is a hard limit, nobody can make more. That may be natural, as in the case of land, or artificial, in the case of taxi medallions and such. Governments in certain places LOVE to put these artificial limits in place so there donors can extract rent.
There is no hard limit on money, investment, capital. There is a LOT more capital today than there was 100 years ago - probably ten times as much. You can build capital equipment yourself in your garage, if you're so inclined. Therefore there can be no rent, the cost of capital is controlled by supply and demand. Rent on capital would be possible only if government limited your ability to invest.
That's no big - one doesn't need to know much about economic theory as long as you understand the actionable conclusion - investment is how you get rich. Our tax system gives an extra bonus there, and employer 401k matching adds another 50% or so increase.
Money represents economic value. "Making money" is a shorthand way of saying "creating economic value". Someone who "makes $30,000" is someone who produces finding valued at $30,000.
Based on your comment, you might be surprised to learn people are not in fact born with $10 million shoved up their ass which then "went somewhere", to use your words. The balance, the "thermodynamics" is that their economic income matches their economic outflow. If you build tables in your garage, and each week someo, someone buys one of your tables for $500, your income is $500 precisely because your outflow is $500 worth of table.
If your weekly output is "played 45 video games", your weekly income will have the exact same economic value as what you produced - zero.
Btw that doesn't change if you and a friend make the tables together, or if you and 100 friends do. If 90 friends build tables and ten friends but all the tools and build the shop, they'll get income equal to the market value of what they did.
If someone's income is $30,000 and someone else's income is $50,000, that's because one person produced stuff with an economic value of $30,000 and the other person $50,000. The first person didn't misplace $20,000, they simply didn't create as much.
State A:
Neighborhood 1 average income $100,000
Neighborhood 2 average income $50,000
Inequality = $50,000
State B:
Neighborhood 1 average income $100,000
Neighborhood 2 average income $30,000
Inequality = $70,000
Having a bunch of broke people mathematically means you'll have higher inequality, if you also have anyone doing well.
The sane thing to do is for state B to look at state A and ask "how we can help our lower income people make $50,000 like they do in the other state? What is state A doing that makes their lower-income tier earn more than out lower-income tier?"
Your "solution" is to ask "how can we harm our high-earners so they can only make $30,000, making everyone equally poor?". Please stay in California.
I didn't know about their unusual policy of not advertising unrelated products, but they have advertised products related to Mad, and those ads are subject to truth in advertising laws. The point is we don't have similar "truth in articles" laws that allow the government to come after you for printing things it doesn't agree are true. Having ads doesn't mean the articles have to be true.
(Though if you engage in outright libel, the *victim* can sue.)
Of course.
My point is that when 12 million people watched an episode of Game of Thrones, that means it was transferred 12 million times. It wasn't encoded 12 million times. Sure a scene might be encoded 12 times, then each encoded copy was downloaded a million times.
If I watch a 7Mbps stream of GoT, a million other people watched the same 7Mbps stream. That 7Mbps version only had to be encoded once, for a million viewers, so it would be crazy to skimp on a dollar of encoding time.
Mad Magazine has ads. The Onion has ads. The *ads* are held to a certain "truth in advertising" standard. That does NOT mean the stories in Mad magazine have to be approved by the administration, or any other government entity.
That's true, one can decide to spend less CPU encoding.
Having said that, when widely comparing services such as Dish Network vs Comcast vs Frontier, that part would be different only if they are very stupid. For a given level of quality, the higher CPU encoding gives lower bandwidth. Some of us may be used to thinking of higher quality if it were the same bandwidth, but the flip side of that is it also means lower bandwidth for whatever quality level they accept.
Since they are going to transfer the stream to millions of users, the bandwidth difference is multiplied by a million for them. It's a no-brainer to use the CPU to encode well ONCE in order to save on bandwidth a million times. I don't know if I wrote that clearly. If you're encoding once and transferring to one destination, you might not spend the CPU to make the bitrate low / quality high. Given they are encoding once and transferring a million times, it would be moronic of them to spend thousands of dollars more on bandwidth in order to save pennies on CPU.
If we assume they aren't utter morons, they'll all spend the CPU time to get the lowest bandwidth they can for the level of quality they find acceptable. That's another way of saying that they'll have the best quality they can for the bitrate try used.
That's what I was going to say. Compare to competitors using the same codec and more or less bitrate = quality. It's not a PERFECT measure, but it's pretty good and dead simple.