"extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and we don't see that here."
1. By definition any kind of discovery is extraordinary.
2. The extraordinary is precisely what any kind of science is about.
3. If you think there's such a thing as absolute proof of anything then I'll refer you to Descartes and other philosophers. If you think there's such a thing as reasonableness or "proof" in the common sense of the word then you should also agree that "extraordinary evidence" isn't a thing-- there's only evidence and denying it is being unreasonable if you don't have an alternative hypothesis + evidence of your own.
4. I fully encourage you to be skeptical and unreasonable and go construct your own hypothesis and see if you can get some counter evidence.
5. Who gets to decide what evidence is extraordinary enough? Oh, I get it now, this "extraordinary evidence" thing is just bullshit and moving of the goal posts.
Staying in and playing some CS:GO when you've got a cold or when it's raining outside is completely different from being a professional gamer and you know it.
Is it? I'm pretty sure that things like swimming pools, mansions, beach front property, houses, cars, and dollar bills in a wallet are all pretty concrete and tangible.
In nature noone owns anything.
1. Why should we value "the way that nature does it"? Nature also doesn't do science.
2. You're wrong anyway: animals routinely fight over control of territory, mates, and food.
Its society which gives rise to law which gives rise to property and money which gives rise to wealth.
It's society which gives rise to law which safeguards property and money and wealth. You can still have stuff in the absence of a government or a society.
if its not working for most people society has the right to decide to try another way.
Nobody owes you anything. Get a job or work for yourself, hippie.
Given that more and more economic value is being created by machines whose income accrues only to the owners of the machines and not to entire society (though without society we would still be hunting and wearing skins so no machines would have been invented); we may need a new system.
Careful, your jealousy and greed are showing. I would hate for you to lose your self-righteous moral high ground.
A star trek kind of society where people's basic needs are taken care of by the output created by machines (which are owned by society as a whole) and people work for prestige and luxuries.
1. I, for one, am going to need more than an "attaboy" for showing up to a day job no matter how lax the rules are.
2. You know that Star Trek isn't real, right? If you want some kind of a system such as that depicted then you need to prove that such a system is possible in the first place. You go do the science and the economics and then get back to us with the results. In the mean time I won't vote for your cockamamie schemes being forced down our throats.
This can work in a society where 90% of the economic output can be provided by machines and you only need humans for 10% of the creative jobs.
You pulled that completely out of your ass. Like I said before: you go do the science, crunch the numbers, do some experiments and then get back to us. Until then keep your wild-eyed rhetoric to yourself, comrade.
For such jobs a human who doesnt have to work but wants to do the work will be much more productive.
Oh they'll be more productive, eh?
You're making a lot of assumptions about a lot of people you've never met.
In other words: prove it.
The humans who dont want to work will be bored and eventually stop reproducing so the problem will solve itself over 5-10 generations in a humane manner.
More assumptions. Prove them.
Also, as far as I can tell, it's the exact opposite in this country: the lazy and indolent are having children by the dozens while the intelligent and productive members of society (middle class and higher) are having fewer and fewer children.
That means every strcpy and even every strncpy is creating an exploitable situation. That kind of rash amateurism in implementation has nothing to do with the protocol. A mind boggling stupid idiot must have written that code.
Everyone makes mistakes. But aren't there tools out there that will avoid mistakes like this? In other words, if that rank amateur had been using C++ instead of doing a bunch of manual stuff with C then this particular problem would have been avoided.
We see that the code has been refactored, but still suffers from three buffer overflows in
roughly the same places as before. The strncpy() function is being passed a length based on
the distance between two strings in the attacker-supplied request, but is not checked against
the size of the destination buffer.
So... if they had used C++ and std::string instead of doing everything manually in C then this would not have happened (perhaps some other vulnerability would be found instead, but not this one).
STOP USING C. It is not superior in any way. You are not a big tough guy for using "the most hardcore" language.
Not everyone will be an expert. Yes, we do have to live with idiots-- and even if there's no idiots around we're all still capable of being dumb ourselves.
The Constitution was written specifically to empower a strong federal government.
If by "strong federal government" you mean "a federal government which was empowered in very specific ways to help it herd the state cats" then I agree with you.
Sure, it you like tiny windows. I prefer a real taskbar, effectively tabs for everything. All windows full screen, and one click to switch to any of them.
I open a window and it's automatically full screen and doesn't waste any space on a title bar.
If I open another application it will automatically split the screen to maximize both (half each). I don't even have to click to set focus, I just mouse over the window which saves any potential errors from fumbling the mouse (i.e. click-drag instead of a simple click, or clicking to set focus... but accidentally hitting a button in the window which then does something unintended).
Awesome supports an arbitrary number of desktops (they're actually tags, but I don't have time to fully explain) and different monitors have their own sets. I use three monitors at work and two at home. I usually have four text editor instances running and an instance of chrome all using the maximum amount of screen real estate. Hit "win + enter" to bring up a terminal, fiddle around or git status or git pull, then "ctrl + d" to close the terminal and Awesome will automatically resize the other windows to fill the screen again without any other interaction from me. It's very efficient.
I can send the currently focused window to any tag by pressing "win + shift + $tagnumber" on my keyboard-- I can even configure and script Awesome to behave any way I want it to using Lua. I don't bother to do much messing around, but I know that many other people do plenty of cool stuff using the Lua API.
I can instantly switch the current monitor to the desired tag by pressing "win + $tagnumber" or by mousing over the tag list and scrolling the mouse wheel, or, if the desktop wallpaper is visible because I have no windows open I can just mouse over that and scroll. I usually keep certain tags/desktops for certain things-- for example I habitually put Chrome on tag number one on my far left monitor. I can set up a script to tell Awesome to auto-start chrome, for example, when I log in.
Press "win + k" or "win + j" to change focus using the keyboard: handy if what you're doing is editing text all day.
Press "win + h" or "win + l" to increase or decrease a window's portion of used screen space.
Hold the win key and then mouse click and drag a window accross the monitor and Awesome will automatically just snap it to the appropriate size on the appropriate monitor for me. I don't have to fiddle around resizing windows at all-- nor should I! There's several pre-set tiling modes in Awesome that I can cycle through at the touch of a mouse click or scroll of the mouse wheel-- even a "floating" mode which doesn't do any auto-resizing at all and lets the window float on the screen and I can drag it around or resize it almost like a traditional desktop.
That's a lot of text, but my point here is how much more streamlined my workflow is compared to the equivalent on Windows.
Fundamentally what we're after is an easy to use window manager that automatically handles window arrangement for you and doesn't get in your way, right?
But don't you see? Windows is precisely the wrong desktop to use for this! Windows forces you to manually manage the windows on your screen! You must click to set focus. You must move your mouse to and click on a button to maximize or close or minimize. You must find that tiny margin and click and drag to resize a window. Only very recently has Windows even implemented multiple desktops!
It's almost natural by now through so much repetition, isn't it? But it is unnecessary! And, more importantly, Microsoft does not allow you, nor support, any choice in the matter!
I'm not going into detail what social, political, economical and genetic factors may or may not contribute to the correlation. It's a can of worms no professional dares to approach fully objectively.
Thomas Sowell, an intellectual titan, has done precisely that.
Nobody said that Windows can't have a feature. GP's point was that Microsoft shouldn't get any accolades for implementing something that has been available, depending on configuration and DE, in Linux for over a decade. You don't get a blue ribbon for catching up to where the rest of the racers have already been for some time.
Also, Microsoft has a very very long way to go to catch up to the customization that GTK and KDE have had for decades. That hideous blinding white was one of the reasons I switched away from Windows in the first place.
Plus, this is more than just the file explorer, it's ANY application.
Fluxbox has had this for a very long time. (I used fluxbox for years).
But why use tabs for organization if you could have your window manager (i.e. Awesome, i3) handle the arrangement for you automatically instead?
Diversity is good, but pooling resources around a common shared goal is often better.
Agreed.
But, to add some nuance that I hope we can both agree on: diversity is strong when the way forward isn't clear, pooling around a shared goal is strong when a good way forward is already known and/or restarting from scratch is difficult or expensive.
As long as the code is open then the hazards of pooling around a common solution are minimized-- and Wayland is open source.
The Canonical founder is cutting numbers after an external assessment of his company by potential new financial backers found overstaffing and that projects lacked focus.
So Shuttleworth is being a responsible adult and cutting the people who aren't doing anything useful and getting things back on track so that they don't waste man/woman hours on projects that don't have any point?
If so then good.
Does this also mean Canonical is going to ditch Mir and focus on helping to improve Wayland instead? Why reinvent a different and incompatible wheel when you could just help refine the one that is already there? This seems to be the reasoning behind switching back to GNOME as the default DE.
Does this mean Canonical is going to stop wasting time on dumb and redundant ideas like Ubuntu phone? I hope so.
If they're cutting these sorts of time wasters then it makes sense that they'd also cut the people that worked on those projects. Unlike Apple, Canonical is showing real bravery here by cutting employees from an already controversial company (open source people like to get angry). But if that's what brings the company back on track then more power to Shuttleworth.
What's curious to me is how Canonical got off onto those bullshit projects in the first place. Seems to me like the execs who suggested such fad-chasing (Ubuntu phone) and wheel-reinventing (Mir and Unity) should also be on the chopping block if they aren't already.
(full disclosure: I use Ubuntu on all of my computers at home and at work)
Slashdot Mirror
"extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and we don't see that here."
1. By definition any kind of discovery is extraordinary.
2. The extraordinary is precisely what any kind of science is about.
3. If you think there's such a thing as absolute proof of anything then I'll refer you to Descartes and other philosophers. If you think there's such a thing as reasonableness or "proof" in the common sense of the word then you should also agree that "extraordinary evidence" isn't a thing-- there's only evidence and denying it is being unreasonable if you don't have an alternative hypothesis + evidence of your own.
4. I fully encourage you to be skeptical and unreasonable and go construct your own hypothesis and see if you can get some counter evidence.
5. Who gets to decide what evidence is extraordinary enough? Oh, I get it now, this "extraordinary evidence" thing is just bullshit and moving of the goal posts.
They're called "Makerspaces" now and almost every city does have one.
If the rich didn't get more ways to weasel out of paying their due...
Looks like the rich weaseled their way into paying 47% of income taxes in the US. So, how much did you pay in taxes?
I have the degrees and pay stubs to prove it.
According to Oregon your degrees don't mean jack shit unless you qualified and registered as an engineer in the state of Oregon.
Staying in and playing some CS:GO when you've got a cold or when it's raining outside is completely different from being a professional gamer and you know it.
Wealth is an abstract concept.
Is it? I'm pretty sure that things like swimming pools, mansions, beach front property, houses, cars, and dollar bills in a wallet are all pretty concrete and tangible.
In nature noone owns anything.
1. Why should we value "the way that nature does it"? Nature also doesn't do science.
2. You're wrong anyway: animals routinely fight over control of territory, mates, and food.
Its society which gives rise to law which gives rise to property and money which gives rise to wealth.
It's society which gives rise to law which safeguards property and money and wealth. You can still have stuff in the absence of a government or a society.
if its not working for most people society has the right to decide to try another way.
Nobody owes you anything. Get a job or work for yourself, hippie.
Given that more and more economic value is being created by machines whose income accrues only to the owners of the machines and not to entire society (though without society we would still be hunting and wearing skins so no machines would have been invented); we may need a new system.
Careful, your jealousy and greed are showing. I would hate for you to lose your self-righteous moral high ground.
A star trek kind of society where people's basic needs are taken care of by the output created by machines (which are owned by society as a whole) and people work for prestige and luxuries.
1. I, for one, am going to need more than an "attaboy" for showing up to a day job no matter how lax the rules are.
2. You know that Star Trek isn't real, right? If you want some kind of a system such as that depicted then you need to prove that such a system is possible in the first place. You go do the science and the economics and then get back to us with the results. In the mean time I won't vote for your cockamamie schemes being forced down our throats.
This can work in a society where 90% of the economic output can be provided by machines and you only need humans for 10% of the creative jobs.
You pulled that completely out of your ass. Like I said before: you go do the science, crunch the numbers, do some experiments and then get back to us. Until then keep your wild-eyed rhetoric to yourself, comrade.
For such jobs a human who doesnt have to work but wants to do the work will be much more productive.
Oh they'll be more productive, eh?
You're making a lot of assumptions about a lot of people you've never met.
In other words: prove it.
The humans who dont want to work will be bored and eventually stop reproducing so the problem will solve itself over 5-10 generations in a humane manner.
More assumptions. Prove them.
Also, as far as I can tell, it's the exact opposite in this country: the lazy and indolent are having children by the dozens while the intelligent and productive members of society (middle class and higher) are having fewer and fewer children.
Go download it and install it-- nobody is stopping you.
But it's still hard to take Stallman seriously because he doesn't provide practical solutions to these problems.
WTF am I reading?! There's this thing called the GNU project. Maybe you've heard of it.
Do you use Linux?
Elsewhere In C I would use pointers for linked lists.
Don't use linked lists if you care about performance. If writing a dynamic array is a pain in the ass in C then stop using C. Use C++ instead.
And don't give me that ignorant crap about C++ being bloated in comparison to C and thus unacceptable for embedded uses.
This guy wrote pong for the C64 in under 1KB of compiled code (including sprites!) with ZERO ram usage.
And it's fast as fuck...
Wrong.
That means every strcpy and even every strncpy is creating an exploitable situation. That kind of rash amateurism in implementation has nothing to do with the protocol. A mind boggling stupid idiot must have written that code.
Everyone makes mistakes. But aren't there tools out there that will avoid mistakes like this? In other words, if that rank amateur had been using C++ instead of doing a bunch of manual stuff with C then this particular problem would have been avoided.
.pdf:
Page 17 from the
We see that the code has been refactored, but still suffers from three buffer overflows in roughly the same places as before. The strncpy() function is being passed a length based on the distance between two strings in the attacker-supplied request, but is not checked against the size of the destination buffer.
So... if they had used C++ and std::string instead of doing everything manually in C then this would not have happened (perhaps some other vulnerability would be found instead, but not this one).
STOP USING C. It is not superior in any way. You are not a big tough guy for using "the most hardcore" language.
Not everyone will be an expert. Yes, we do have to live with idiots-- and even if there's no idiots around we're all still capable of being dumb ourselves.
The Constitution was written specifically to empower a strong federal government.
If by "strong federal government" you mean "a federal government which was empowered in very specific ways to help it herd the state cats" then I agree with you.
Sure, it you like tiny windows. I prefer a real taskbar, effectively tabs for everything. All windows full screen, and one click to switch to any of them.
But that's exactly how I use Awesome.
I open a window and it's automatically full screen and doesn't waste any space on a title bar.
If I open another application it will automatically split the screen to maximize both (half each). I don't even have to click to set focus, I just mouse over the window which saves any potential errors from fumbling the mouse (i.e. click-drag instead of a simple click, or clicking to set focus... but accidentally hitting a button in the window which then does something unintended).
Awesome supports an arbitrary number of desktops (they're actually tags, but I don't have time to fully explain) and different monitors have their own sets. I use three monitors at work and two at home. I usually have four text editor instances running and an instance of chrome all using the maximum amount of screen real estate. Hit "win + enter" to bring up a terminal, fiddle around or git status or git pull, then "ctrl + d" to close the terminal and Awesome will automatically resize the other windows to fill the screen again without any other interaction from me. It's very efficient.
I can send the currently focused window to any tag by pressing "win + shift + $tagnumber" on my keyboard-- I can even configure and script Awesome to behave any way I want it to using Lua. I don't bother to do much messing around, but I know that many other people do plenty of cool stuff using the Lua API.
I can instantly switch the current monitor to the desired tag by pressing "win + $tagnumber" or by mousing over the tag list and scrolling the mouse wheel, or, if the desktop wallpaper is visible because I have no windows open I can just mouse over that and scroll. I usually keep certain tags/desktops for certain things-- for example I habitually put Chrome on tag number one on my far left monitor. I can set up a script to tell Awesome to auto-start chrome, for example, when I log in.
Press "win + k" or "win + j" to change focus using the keyboard: handy if what you're doing is editing text all day.
Press "win + h" or "win + l" to increase or decrease a window's portion of used screen space.
Hold the win key and then mouse click and drag a window accross the monitor and Awesome will automatically just snap it to the appropriate size on the appropriate monitor for me. I don't have to fiddle around resizing windows at all-- nor should I! There's several pre-set tiling modes in Awesome that I can cycle through at the touch of a mouse click or scroll of the mouse wheel-- even a "floating" mode which doesn't do any auto-resizing at all and lets the window float on the screen and I can drag it around or resize it almost like a traditional desktop.
That's a lot of text, but my point here is how much more streamlined my workflow is compared to the equivalent on Windows.
Fundamentally what we're after is an easy to use window manager that automatically handles window arrangement for you and doesn't get in your way, right?
But don't you see? Windows is precisely the wrong desktop to use for this! Windows forces you to manually manage the windows on your screen! You must click to set focus. You must move your mouse to and click on a button to maximize or close or minimize. You must find that tiny margin and click and drag to resize a window. Only very recently has Windows even implemented multiple desktops!
It's almost natural by now through so much repetition, isn't it? But it is unnecessary! And, more importantly, Microsoft does not allow you, nor support, any choice in the matter!
Why not be free instead?
I'm not going into detail what social, political, economical and genetic factors may or may not contribute to the correlation. It's a can of worms no professional dares to approach fully objectively.
Thomas Sowell, an intellectual titan, has done precisely that.
Dodging the question much?
Also, he does some detailed math, but for a different vaporware product, in this one: waterseer busted.
Not a drawback as far as Apple fanboys are concerned: they're already high on the smell of their own farts.
Just don't suggest spaces and we'll all get along just fine.
So if Linux has a feature, Windows can't?
Nobody said that Windows can't have a feature. GP's point was that Microsoft shouldn't get any accolades for implementing something that has been available, depending on configuration and DE, in Linux for over a decade. You don't get a blue ribbon for catching up to where the rest of the racers have already been for some time.
Also, Microsoft has a very very long way to go to catch up to the customization that GTK and KDE have had for decades. That hideous blinding white was one of the reasons I switched away from Windows in the first place.
Plus, this is more than just the file explorer, it's ANY application.
Fluxbox has had this for a very long time. (I used fluxbox for years).
But why use tabs for organization if you could have your window manager (i.e. Awesome, i3) handle the arrangement for you automatically instead?
Diversity is good, but pooling resources around a common shared goal is often better.
Agreed.
But, to add some nuance that I hope we can both agree on: diversity is strong when the way forward isn't clear, pooling around a shared goal is strong when a good way forward is already known and/or restarting from scratch is difficult or expensive.
As long as the code is open then the hazards of pooling around a common solution are minimized-- and Wayland is open source.
On Linux it's ctrl + shift + i or F12 which works on all platforms.
I've been using the Hacker Vision extension in the Chrome store (it also works, I've used it, with Vivaldi).
The Canonical founder is cutting numbers after an external assessment of his company by potential new financial backers found overstaffing and that projects lacked focus.
So Shuttleworth is being a responsible adult and cutting the people who aren't doing anything useful and getting things back on track so that they don't waste man/woman hours on projects that don't have any point?
If so then good.
Does this also mean Canonical is going to ditch Mir and focus on helping to improve Wayland instead? Why reinvent a different and incompatible wheel when you could just help refine the one that is already there? This seems to be the reasoning behind switching back to GNOME as the default DE.
Does this mean Canonical is going to stop wasting time on dumb and redundant ideas like Ubuntu phone? I hope so.
If they're cutting these sorts of time wasters then it makes sense that they'd also cut the people that worked on those projects. Unlike Apple, Canonical is showing real bravery here by cutting employees from an already controversial company (open source people like to get angry). But if that's what brings the company back on track then more power to Shuttleworth.
What's curious to me is how Canonical got off onto those bullshit projects in the first place. Seems to me like the execs who suggested such fad-chasing (Ubuntu phone) and wheel-reinventing (Mir and Unity) should also be on the chopping block if they aren't already.
(full disclosure: I use Ubuntu on all of my computers at home and at work)
give the fastest internet for free
It is not free. Do you know what taxes are?! How do you not how this whole government taxation thing works?!