I never post anywhere. I don't post on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Slashd... oh crap.
Seriously though, I don't have a Twitter account. I looked at Twitter once or twice and I found it lacking either of two things that would make it useful. I might find it useful if I could either find stuff by topic or through a social NETWORK, but it doesn't seem to be made for searching or exploring, only for following a specific celebrity you've already chosen. I might be interested in feeds about a certain topic. Twitter doesn't do that. I might be interested in seeing what old friends are up to, finding all the people I went to high school with like Facebook. Maybe when I look up what my friend is doing I would click to see whatever happened to his hot sister.
Twitter may have changed since I last looked at it, or those functions might have been there, but not just intuitive how to do those things.
Based on this post, you sound like such a nice, friendly person. I want to live around people like you.
We've actually had conversations before, so I know you're not normally a complete jerk. Maybe your constipated this morning or something. If I didn't know you, though, your current post would be an example indicating that people from the coasts are ignorant, arrogant assholes.
The truth is, Ward Cleaver would fit in better in the Midwest, Marilyn Manson in California. If your lifestyle is more like Marilyn Manson than Ward Cleaver you might prefer California, New York, or Austin. If you want a more "wholesome" Ward Cleaver lifestyle, head west a few miles from Austin to College Station, Tx. I've lived in each city for a number of years. Both are nice in their own way. When I was young and partying, I liked Austin, where the piercings outnumber the people by six to one. Now that I'm a little older and I think about things like savings for retirement and where my kids go to school, College Station is a better fit.
I set my wife's up to boot Linux from a high-performance SD card. Her previous computer ran Linux, so I figured I'd make the Chromebook run what she's familiar with.
It turns out, everything she does on the computer she does through a web browser, so she's never had any reason to boot to Linux. ChromeOS suits her use case perfectly. I find that surprising, but ChromeOS is apparently very good at what it's designed for - email, general web browsing, YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, etc.
I've never in my life uttered "gnu/Linux", until now, but to answer the question, glibc is approximately everywhere. Also, unless you've been infected with systemd, you're probably running gnu sysvinit as pid 1 (or upstart).
You COULD run a minimal Linux system at runlevel 3 without any gnu code, but for a desktop system, running a graphical desktop environment, you're probably going to have some gnu in a few places.
Programmers generally think about how to make it work. Their mindset is not how break it, therefore unchecked inputs are extremely common, in all sorts of code. In fact, I'll go further and say that fully cross-validating input is rare. With Heartbleed, each input value was valid, it was only the RELATIONSHIP between input values that was unchecked. Most programs don't go so far as to validate the relationships between inputs.
Therefore, while Heartbleed COULD have been intentional, it's precisely the kind of error we see all the time. It's just like a web form that allows you to enter your address as California, UK. The IV that NSA recommended was intentional. Heartbleed is a very typical piece of code. Most code has a similar same "flaw" - it just doesn't matter much in other code.
The average savings rate of people who become millionaires is indeed 20%. That's a number I remember precisely. The others I could have been slightly off, but we can double-check them right now. Obviously that 20% is higher than the general population, as expected. (Saving money _should_ result in having money.)
You can do the math for exact numbers if you wish, but off the top of my head you need to save about $400 / month to end up with a million in 30-35 years, given the long-term average returns in the stock market. $400 is 20% of $2,000/month, which is just $24,000 / year for the low end. You WOULD end up a millionaire by savings 20% of $24,000, but that's hard to do. It's easier to live off of $40,000 while earning $50,000.
> most likely found and are exploiting loopholes. Consider further that they wouldn't have attracted a dime of venture funding without at least some plan to exploit existing legal loopholes.
Much like Uber had "some plan to exploit existing legal loopholes". Also that TV service, I've forgotten the name, whose loophole was having thousands of antennas, one for each customer.
Or Megaupload "we run a file hosting service, just like Dropbox".
Or Rick Perry, who was recently indicted, though he thought he had a legal loophole.
>. write it yourself?). Better than believing "trust us - we don't track you/log you/etc" (looking at you, Startpage and DuckDuckGo), but you have to trust someone unless you do it all yourself from scratch.
Even if (especially if) you wrote it from scratch yourself you can't trust it. Just ask the folks who wrote Apple's SSL implementation, or openssl. They wrote it and later found out that it wasn't actually we secure. Unless you can prove that you're MUCH better at encryption than the openssl guys are...
I recently tool a look at some password storage a colleague did. He was sure it was secure because he didn't store plaintext passwords, only hashes of them. It took about 60 seconds for me to tell him his password.
The average who put in $4,000 twenty years ago has watched it grow to about $16,000 today. The average investor (Dow) is up 75% in the last ten years and the last ten years are considered really bad.
So again, you can whine, or you can start putting away $400 / month and in 32 years you'll be a millionaire.
It just so happens that Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet) ALSO made right about 75% in the last ten years - exactly the SAME as your typical IRA invested in a plain old index fund. Imagine that, Warren Buffet, me, and granny all made the same return.
Whine, or do something to improve your situation - your choice, bub.
The hoped advantage of XMPP was interoperability. If you have no "friends" using XMPP, the primary reason to use it doesn't exist. Then you're left with just the problems that XMPP brings.
"I don't *need* to have friends to enjoy the drag races. " But you DO *need* friends in order to have interoperable communications. See the difference? If you called your friends to talk about going to the races and they didn't answer the phone, which you sit there for three years holding the phone to your ear? No, because in order to have a phone conversation, the other party has to participate. In order to have an XMPP conversation, the other network has to participate.
Tell you what, go try building something like Hangouts, but use XMPP. You'll discover why that doesn't work so well.
That is a good book. One day I might get few cases of it at wholesale price and hand them out to people who would benefit. I've been to give out copies Man's Search for Meaning.
Does anyone here happen to know who this guy is, what he did? TFS mentions what the prosecutor intended to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but they could prove that All Capone cheated on his taxes and OJ Simpson intimidated a guy in a hotel room. They were pursued and partially sentenced based on what they DID, apart from which bits the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
If asked "who was Al Capone?", you wouldn't answer "a guy who cheated on his taxes". Who is this person?
> Once I'm a millionaire, can I drink coffee again? =)
Until you retire, you can drink coffee made at home for 27 cents per cup, a saving of 96% or so.
Once I'm a millionaire, my plan is $1 million to live off, $1 million to give away, and $1 million to enjoy. Lately I've been thinking I might retire earlier and do half a million for each.
Eh, not really, if you wanted someone with no idea about anything, you voted for Bush Jr, then for Obama.
John McCain did have some ideas, but he forgot what they were. Fortunately, WE knew what they were based on his 26 years of votes in the Senate. Then someone in his campaign had the idea to pick Palin, but apparently forgot to talk to her first and find out if she had a clue.
Ron Paul had some ideas of how things should be done. Some of his ideas might involve UFOs, and certainly they involved gold coins, but he had some ideas, right or wrong.
I'd like to propose a solution to that. With my proposal, ordinary people like you and I could get benefits currently reserved for people who own big businesses and things like that. With my proposal for common ownership of businesses, someone currently making $30,000-$50,000 per year can become a millionaire.
It takes money to make money, they say. Right now, someone who has five million dollars to build a new factory might make another three million from it. If you don't have five million, you can't build a factory. I have a way to make that more fair.
So say it takes $5 million expand a business. Maybe Starbucks wants to build a new distribution center and open a few more stores for $5 million. I propose that ordinary people should be able to sign up for the following program:
Instead of spending $5 per week buying a Starbucks coffee, they sign up to put that $5 per week into the "pot" to be combined with other peoples contributions, which is then used for the $5 million expansion. Over the course of a year, you or I might put $2,000 into the pot.
The "pot" now owns x% of Starbucks.
Everybody who put in a their $2,000 / year or whatever gets a share of the profits that Starbuck's made that year.
In this way, ordinary people like you and I become the owners of big companies.
Your share of the profit is based on how much of the needed money you put it. Suppose I skip buying one Starbuck's coffee and put in $5 / week, while you skip a coffee, a restaurant meal, a smart watch, and the ESPN super sports package so you can put in $100 per week. You put it 20 times as much as I did, so your share of the profit is 20 times as much as mine. We could call each unit of pot a "share".
What I just described is exactly how most millionaires got to be millionaires. The majority of millionaires today made less than $50,000 per year and became millionaires by putting aside $800 or less each month, which they used to buy shares in a corporation.
Your choice - you can whine about me skipping the super deluxe cable package in order to slowly become a millionaire, or you can join me and be a millionaire too. I don't care too much which you choose. If you decide to be a millionaire, I'd be glad to help you get started.
--- When I've pointed out some of the stuff that professors of climatology said in the 1990s, the environmentalists here on Slashdot have said "that guy is a wacko, he doesn't represent the mainstream of liberal thought on the issue". I'll take them at their word. So we all agree the UC climatologist's "science" was false/bogus/wrong. And we all agree that the climate has changed. Not really useful. ---
After much discussion, we end up with you saying: His was a minority view and he was wrong.
His predictions also don't appear to be mainstream at all. He seemed to have this strange idea
So we agree that the Stanford University professor and head of Stanford and ClimateChange.Net is "wrong".
We agree that the predictions of Oxford Fellow Norman Myers, published by the UN, are based on "strange ideas" which are also wrong.
Along with the distinguished scientists, we agree that Al Gore "has no particular expertise" and his statements were false. (Relevant because a) this page is about a political vote and b) more people have listened to Gore speak than have listened to any of these scientists).
So pretty much what I said originally. There's no shortage of nuttiness labeled "climate change", and there is also at least a grain of truth to the idea. So how are you going to vote, do you believe climate change is true or false, yes or no? A reasonable person can only say "I know that what Stanford, Oxford, and Al Gore said was malarky, and I know that climate does change". There's no "yes" or "no" answer that makes any sense.
What would you have Google do, and why would they do it? They used an open standard and campaigned for their peers to do the same. Their peers declined. What else would you have them do?
They didn't spend xx million dollars developing a new protocol and software for both server-side and client-side to replace their already existing Talk because Talk was working great already. They made that investment in order to have a better service.
> how is being the only one using XMPP worse
The key words there are "being the only one". You don't get interoperability by being the only one using the "standard". Instead, they were the only major player hurt by the limitations of XMPP. For example, XMPP is designed around a reasonably consistent network connection and fairly stable IP, while mobile phone IPs might change several times in five minutes. Synchronization of audio and video isn't great, etc.
XMPP would have had the advantage of interoperability IF other major providers used it. Since the other major providers did not use XMPP, there was no interoperability advantage and therefore no convincing reason to stay with it, other than the money and time it would take to develop something new and switch.
Slashdot Mirror
>. which is actually way down somewhere below 5,500 lb.
As you can see on the DMV page, it's 10,000 pounds - twice the weight of 2014 F-250.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
An F-750 heavy hauler with Caterpillar engine does qualify as a commercial vehicle.
You other assertions of fact are approximately as accurate.
I never post anywhere. I don't post on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Slashd ... oh crap.
Seriously though, I don't have a Twitter account. I looked at Twitter once or twice and I found it lacking either of two things that would make it useful. I might find it useful if I could either find stuff by topic or through a social NETWORK, but it doesn't seem to be made for searching or exploring, only for following a specific celebrity you've already chosen. I might be interested in feeds about a certain topic. Twitter doesn't do that. I might be interested in seeing what old friends are up to, finding all the people I went to high school with like Facebook. Maybe when I look up what my friend is doing I would click to see whatever happened to his hot sister.
Twitter may have changed since I last looked at it, or those functions might have been there, but not just intuitive how to do those things.
>. Some of them, perhaps most of them are unaware that they are not affiliated.
They'll be aware now! Which is the point, according to Whatsapp.
Based on this post, you sound like such a nice, friendly person. I want to live around people like you.
We've actually had conversations before, so I know you're not normally a complete jerk. Maybe your constipated this morning or something. If I didn't know you, though, your current post would be an example indicating that people from the coasts are ignorant, arrogant assholes.
The truth is, Ward Cleaver would fit in better in the Midwest, Marilyn Manson in California. If your lifestyle is more like Marilyn Manson than Ward Cleaver you might prefer California, New York, or Austin. If you want a more "wholesome" Ward Cleaver lifestyle, head west a few miles from Austin to College Station, Tx. I've lived in each city for a number of years. Both are nice in their own way. When I was young and partying, I liked Austin, where the piercings outnumber the people by six to one. Now that I'm a little older and I think about things like savings for retirement and where my kids go to school, College Station is a better fit.
I set my wife's up to boot Linux from a high-performance SD card. Her previous computer ran Linux, so I figured I'd make the Chromebook run what she's familiar with.
It turns out, everything she does on the computer she does through a web browser, so she's never had any reason to boot to Linux. ChromeOS suits her use case perfectly. I find that surprising, but ChromeOS is apparently very good at what it's designed for - email, general web browsing, YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, etc.
Lennart already announced that systemd will include it's own replacement for glibc, the most widely used gnu software.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/a...
I've never in my life uttered "gnu/Linux", until now, but to answer the question, glibc is approximately everywhere. Also, unless you've been infected with systemd, you're probably running gnu sysvinit as pid 1 (or upstart).
You COULD run a minimal Linux system at runlevel 3 without any gnu code, but for a desktop system, running a graphical desktop environment, you're probably going to have some gnu in a few places.
I was talking about both.
Programmers generally think about how to make it work. Their mindset is not how break it, therefore unchecked inputs are extremely common, in all sorts of code. In fact, I'll go further and say that fully cross-validating input is rare. With Heartbleed, each input value was valid, it was only the RELATIONSHIP between input values that was unchecked. Most programs don't go so far as to validate the relationships between inputs.
Therefore, while Heartbleed COULD have been intentional, it's precisely the kind of error we see all the time. It's just like a web form that allows you to enter your address as California, UK. The IV that NSA recommended was intentional. Heartbleed is a very typical piece of code. Most code has a similar same "flaw" - it just doesn't matter much in other code.
He didn't salt the hashes, so it was a simple lookup
The average savings rate of people who become millionaires is indeed 20%. That's a number I remember precisely. The others I could have been slightly off, but we can double-check them right now. Obviously that 20% is higher than the general population, as expected. (Saving money _should_ result in having money.)
You can do the math for exact numbers if you wish, but off the top of my head you need to save about $400 / month to end up with a million in 30-35 years, given the long-term average returns in the stock market. $400 is 20% of $2,000/month, which is just $24,000 / year for the low end. You WOULD end up a millionaire by savings 20% of $24,000, but that's hard to do. It's easier to live off of $40,000 while earning $50,000.
> most likely found and are exploiting loopholes. Consider further that they wouldn't have attracted a dime of venture funding without at least some plan to exploit existing legal loopholes.
Much like Uber had "some plan to exploit existing legal loopholes". Also that TV service, I've forgotten the name, whose loophole was having thousands of antennas, one for each customer.
Or Megaupload "we run a file hosting service, just like Dropbox".
Or Rick Perry, who was recently indicted, though he thought he had a legal loophole.
>. write it yourself?). Better than believing "trust us - we don't track you/log you/etc" (looking at you, Startpage and DuckDuckGo), but you have to trust someone unless you do it all yourself from scratch.
Even if (especially if) you wrote it from scratch yourself you can't trust it. Just ask the folks who wrote Apple's SSL implementation, or openssl. They wrote it and later found out that it wasn't actually we secure. Unless you can prove that you're MUCH better at encryption than the openssl guys are ...
I recently tool a look at some password storage a colleague did. He was sure it was secure because he didn't store plaintext passwords, only hashes of them. It took about 60 seconds for me to tell him his password.
The average who put in $4,000 twenty years ago has watched it grow to about $16,000 today. The average investor (Dow) is up 75% in the last ten years and the last ten years are considered really bad.
So again, you can whine, or you can start putting away $400 / month and in 32 years you'll be a millionaire.
It just so happens that Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet) ALSO made right about 75% in the last ten years - exactly the SAME as your typical IRA invested in a plain old index fund. Imagine that, Warren Buffet, me, and granny all made the same return.
Whine, or do something to improve your situation - your choice, bub.
The hoped advantage of XMPP was interoperability. If you have no "friends" using XMPP, the primary reason to use it doesn't exist. Then you're left with just the problems that XMPP brings.
"I don't *need* to have friends to enjoy the drag races. "
But you DO *need* friends in order to have interoperable communications. See the difference? If you called your friends to talk about going to the races and they didn't answer the phone, which you sit there for three years holding the phone to your ear? No, because in order to have a phone conversation, the other party has to participate. In order to have an XMPP conversation, the other network has to participate.
Tell you what, go try building something like Hangouts, but use XMPP. You'll discover why that doesn't work so well.
That is a good book. One day I might get few cases of it at wholesale price and hand them out to people who would benefit. I've been to give out copies Man's Search for Meaning.
That's cool, dude. I'm on track to retire with $1.3 million dollars, so I'm good. Enjoy your whining.
Does anyone here happen to know who this guy is, what he did? TFS mentions what the prosecutor intended to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but they could prove that All Capone cheated on his taxes and OJ Simpson intimidated a guy in a hotel room. They were pursued and partially sentenced based on what they DID, apart from which bits the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
If asked "who was Al Capone?", you wouldn't answer "a guy who cheated on his taxes". Who is this person?
but but but ... that's Wall Street. What I want is for the people to own the means of production. You know, real communism.
You aren't telling me that I CAN own the means of production by putting 15% of my income into a no-load mutual fund, are you? :)
> Once I'm a millionaire, can I drink coffee again? =)
Until you retire, you can drink coffee made at home for 27 cents per cup, a saving of 96% or so.
Once I'm a millionaire, my plan is $1 million to live off, $1 million to give away, and $1 million to enjoy. Lately I've been thinking I might retire earlier and do half a million for each.
Eh, not really, if you wanted someone with no idea about anything, you voted for Bush Jr, then for Obama.
John McCain did have some ideas, but he forgot what they were. Fortunately, WE knew what they were based on his 26 years of votes in the Senate. Then someone in his campaign had the idea to pick Palin, but apparently forgot to talk to her first and find out if she had a clue.
Ron Paul had some ideas of how things should be done. Some of his ideas might involve UFOs, and certainly they involved gold coins, but he had some ideas, right or wrong.
I'd like to propose a solution to that. With my proposal, ordinary people like you and I could get benefits currently reserved for people who own big businesses and things like that. With my proposal for common ownership of businesses, someone currently making $30,000-$50,000 per year can become a millionaire.
It takes money to make money, they say. Right now, someone who has five million dollars to build a new factory might make another three million from it. If you don't have five million, you can't build a factory. I have a way to make that more fair.
So say it takes $5 million expand a business. Maybe Starbucks wants to build a new distribution center and open a few more stores for $5 million. I propose that ordinary people should be able to sign up for the following program:
Instead of spending $5 per week buying a Starbucks coffee, they sign up to put that $5 per week into the "pot" to be combined with other peoples contributions, which is then used for the $5 million expansion. Over the course of a year, you or I might put $2,000 into the pot.
The "pot" now owns x% of Starbucks.
Everybody who put in a their $2,000 / year or whatever gets a share of the profits that Starbuck's made that year.
In this way, ordinary people like you and I become the owners of big companies.
Your share of the profit is based on how much of the needed money you put it. Suppose I skip buying one Starbuck's coffee and put in $5 / week, while you skip a coffee, a restaurant meal, a smart watch, and the ESPN super sports package so you can put in $100 per week. You put it 20 times as much as I did, so your share of the profit is 20 times as much as mine. We could call each unit of pot a "share".
What I just described is exactly how most millionaires got to be millionaires. The majority of millionaires today made less than $50,000 per year and became millionaires by putting aside $800 or less each month, which they used to buy shares in a corporation.
Your choice - you can whine about me skipping the super deluxe cable package in order to slowly become a millionaire, or you can join me and be a millionaire too. I don't care too much which you choose. If you decide to be a millionaire, I'd be glad to help you get started.
Common sense requires choosing someone who doesn't have any ideas about how the job should be done?
Let me guess ...
You voted Obama, didn't you.
I started out by saying:
---
When I've pointed out some of the stuff that professors of climatology said in the 1990s, the environmentalists here on Slashdot have said "that guy is a wacko, he doesn't represent the mainstream of liberal thought on the issue". I'll take them at their word. So we all agree the UC climatologist's "science" was false/bogus/wrong. And we all agree that the climate has changed. Not really useful.
---
After much discussion, we end up with you saying:
His was a minority view and he was wrong.
His predictions also don't appear to be mainstream at all. He seemed to have this strange idea
So we agree that the Stanford University professor and head of Stanford and ClimateChange.Net is "wrong".
We agree that the predictions of Oxford Fellow Norman Myers, published by the UN, are based on "strange ideas" which are also wrong.
Along with the distinguished scientists, we agree that Al Gore "has no particular expertise" and his statements were false. (Relevant because a) this page is about a political vote and b) more people have listened to Gore speak than have listened to any of these scientists).
So pretty much what I said originally. There's no shortage of nuttiness labeled "climate change", and there is also at least a grain of truth to the idea. So how are you going to vote, do you believe climate change is true or false, yes or no? A reasonable person can only say "I know that what Stanford, Oxford, and Al Gore said was malarky, and I know that climate does change". There's no "yes" or "no" answer that makes any sense.
What would you have Google do, and why would they do it?
They used an open standard and campaigned for their peers to do the same. Their peers declined. What else would you have them do?
They didn't spend xx million dollars developing a new protocol and software for both server-side and client-side to replace their already existing Talk because Talk was working great already. They made that investment in order to have a better service.
> how is being the only one using XMPP worse
The key words there are "being the only one". You don't get interoperability by being the only one using the "standard". Instead, they were the only major player hurt by the limitations of XMPP. For example, XMPP is designed around a reasonably consistent network connection and fairly stable IP, while mobile phone IPs might change several times in five minutes. Synchronization of audio and video isn't great, etc.
XMPP would have had the advantage of interoperability IF other major providers used it. Since the other major providers did not use XMPP, there was no interoperability advantage and therefore no convincing reason to stay with it, other than the money and time it would take to develop something new and switch.