I don't think the Hurd can ever catch up as a Unix system. The interesting things about it have to do with how it's not like a modern Unix: any user can completely change how the OS works for himself or any other user who cooperates.
The males who pick the best real estate will father females who pick the best real estate. These females will then have good real estate on which to raise their kids.
Details from the ALA. FBI agents no longer have to show probable cause to spy on your reading list, which means people now have every reason to be afraid of reading the "wrong" books.
Tuition isn't really related to the university's costs in any concrete sense. Consider the concept of need-based financial aid: one way to look at it is that schools are nobly helping students who can't afford to pay, but another, more accurate version is that they are simply taking all your money (if you're not rich) or as much as they think they can get away with (if you are).
Here, read this.
Arguably, drive-thrus and such are a specialized local adaption of the landscape to heavy car use rather than an example of why cars are useful in general. When there is good public transportation, stuff that individuals want clusters together near the stops. This is why I prefer to live in cities: I take the train to the area where I want to be, then I'm just a few minutes' walk from dozens of things I might want. Out in the Sprawl on a weekend, getting from the strip mall that has one thing I want to the strip mall that has the next thing is yet another ten minutes in a cage in stop and go traffic. (I commute by train from a little city to a big one and sleep with someone in the Sprawl, so I get to sample all the flavors of life.)
It's unlikely that they would actually make the pressure very different from atmospheric pressure. This would reqiure extremely strong tunnels, extremely good seals, and a great deal of energy to evacuate the tunnel in the first place; and any damage to the tunnel would be disasterous.
Instead, it makes more sense to fill the tunnel with a very light gas, like helium, at approximately one atmosphere (either higher so that oxygen doesn't contaminate the tunnel, or lower so that people don't get asphyxiated by leaks). There would then be much less friction than with wheels and much less air resistance than with air.
dd writes to the network the same way it reads from the disk: standard I/O, with kernel support for the I/O methods it needs. I do my backups with a stock NetBSD boot disk and dd to an NFS partition. So nyeah.
No, they're changing the model to confirm to the observations they already have. Since they're doing the science thang, the next step is to make some predictions based on that model and see how they match with future observations.
I continue to contend that the time to stop them is when you anticipate performance problems. They know how to put files on the server, and I let them make their own decisions on when to do it, advising them when requested or when the need becomes obvious to me. Forcing them to exchange files in some other way will make their lives harder, not easier, causing them to bring in less money, which does not Enhance Shareholder Value. In addition, seemingly arbitrary restrictions (after all, It Worked Before, It Works Elsewhere, and so on) diminish their trust in me and make it harder to get cooperation when I actually need it.
A 100MB email to ten people doesn't come anywhere near choking my mail server, despite the fact that it's made from cheap commodity parts a few years old.
The point being, teach the employees an alternate method to transfer large files and enforce it. From CEO on down.
Perhaps I can do this; but why should I? In terms of user interface, email is exactly the right thing for them to use. One of them has a file, and wants the others to end up with it on their own machines. In a single operation, he sends it to the others, and in a single operation, they have it. Putting it on our server is an invitation to leave it there, sucking up server disk space when everyone forgets about it (as opposed to getting caught when they sweep their own machines for bloat) and being inaccessible when they're on the road.
This is not one of those rare occasions when it is necessary to be a BOFH. Just because I personally think email is for text and people who use it for other things are wankers does not mean it makes business sense to enforce this policy in my workplace.
Why? How is 5MB special? My mail server's job, like the jobs of the other servers, is (to the greatest extent possible) to let the users do what they think they need to do. It's sometimes my job to convince them that they don't need to do it, but I don't have especially good arguments against huge emails, nor do I see a need for them. Sure, it's aesthetically un-pleasing to me (base64? Ugh. PowerPoint? Double ugh), but that's not what we call a business case.
My mail server can handle mail up to 2GB. (Beyond that, I suspect I'll run into a 32-bit barrier in at least one of Exim, UW IMAP, and the libraries they use.) As long as they don't do something really stupid like trying to send something that huge over our little T1, it's not a problem.
... as such, no one should be using their email for personal correspondance.
This is a common policy, but not a universal one and not necessarily a good one. My employer is doing quite well with the policy that happy employees do good work, so we don't spy on them or try to force them to maintain an exact separation between work and home.
The poster used family portraits as an example of how big things are these days, but I'd be surprised if that were really the driving factor here. Think 100MB PowerPoint files: the sales team slings these around like mashed potatoes. But that's OK; our mail server, a cheap PC running Debian+Exim, doesn't even blink, and they understand that it's rarely a good idea to let such things leave our fast network.
Apple is the weaker of the two. Two roughly equal bad guys who fight among themselves => a much better situation than one bad guy who has time to focus on crushing the little guys.
Nobody has ever assumed that GPL software cannot be used on the same system as proprietary software.
You are quite mistaken. People who are clueless about the GPL (and there are a lot of them) assume this all the time. And others make other incorrect assumptions: for example, that code that is compiled or written with a GPL'ed tool becomes GPL'ed. Few people who have been involved in the debate for a while suffer gross misunderstandings like this, but the general public (and clueless managers) certainly do.
This ignores the fact that you cannot link a GPL library into your proprietary code. For a company that writes top secret material, this is somewhat concerning that they would ignore this.
It's not true that you can't link a GPL library into your proprietary code. You can. You just can't distribute it to others in that state. (You can still use it internally.) If you need to distribute proprietary code but want to use GPL code, you just have to keep them at a safe distance from each other: for example, running in separate processes and communicating through IPC or standard I/O is fine. And, of course, this sort of issue is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not to use Linux; it's about integrating GPL code into your code, not merely using them side by side.
No, no, no! It's not just syllables, you have to have a reference to the seasons:
Seattle autumn
and taking over the world
are on Redmond minds.
Under winter's rain,
their gazes turning southward:
they look to Intel.
Spring's green shoots show them
that their license agreements
will make them money.
Laws bought each summer
strengthen the illegal trust.
No one breaks them up.
The risk from cell phones comes from the fact that you are talking: your mind is on the conversation, not the road. To really solve the problem, one would have to ban talking in cars. That could be... impractical.
Perhaps education would make a difference. There's a lot of seat-belt propaganda, but I haven't seen any "god damn it, pay attention!" propaganda. Too bad, really.
Why? I'd be really amused if the feds tried to arrest every "pirate": there isn't enough room in the jails for half the population, and with most of the wage earners gone, the courts and prisons would run out of money tout de suite.
(Yeah, yeah, in practice they'd pare down their load by focusing on outspoken people with the wrong political views, so I really don't want this. But it's nice to dream.)
There isn't enough information in the announcement to tell if that's what happened here, but if PayPal failed to do their job (e.g., they didn't take reasonable security precautions in proportion to their responsibility), a lawsuit is exactly the right thing. In most (i.e., libertarian rather than anarchist) conceptions of the free market, it's part of the gummint's job to enforce contracts, and there's clearly a contract here, even if some parts are just implied by the nature of the relationship: "in exchange for a cut, we will hold onto your money for you" => "if we fuck up and cause you to lose your money, we'll pony up".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the Hurd can ever catch up as a Unix system. The interesting things about it have to do with how it's not like a modern Unix: any user can completely change how the OS works for himself or any other user who cooperates.
The males who pick the best real estate will father females who pick the best real estate. These females will then have good real estate on which to raise their kids.
Details from the ALA. FBI agents no longer have to show probable cause to spy on your reading list, which means people now have every reason to be afraid of reading the "wrong" books.
Tuition isn't really related to the university's costs in any concrete sense. Consider the concept of need-based financial aid: one way to look at it is that schools are nobly helping students who can't afford to pay, but another, more accurate version is that they are simply taking all your money (if you're not rich) or as much as they think they can get away with (if you are). Here, read this.
Arguably, drive-thrus and such are a specialized local adaption of the landscape to heavy car use rather than an example of why cars are useful in general. When there is good public transportation, stuff that individuals want clusters together near the stops. This is why I prefer to live in cities: I take the train to the area where I want to be, then I'm just a few minutes' walk from dozens of things I might want. Out in the Sprawl on a weekend, getting from the strip mall that has one thing I want to the strip mall that has the next thing is yet another ten minutes in a cage in stop and go traffic. (I commute by train from a little city to a big one and sleep with someone in the Sprawl, so I get to sample all the flavors of life.)
(I'm ignoring your parenthetical statement.)
It's unlikely that they would actually make the pressure very different from atmospheric pressure. This would reqiure extremely strong tunnels, extremely good seals, and a great deal of energy to evacuate the tunnel in the first place; and any damage to the tunnel would be disasterous.
Instead, it makes more sense to fill the tunnel with a very light gas, like helium, at approximately one atmosphere (either higher so that oxygen doesn't contaminate the tunnel, or lower so that people don't get asphyxiated by leaks). There would then be much less friction than with wheels and much less air resistance than with air.
dd writes to the network the same way it reads from the disk: standard I/O, with kernel support for the I/O methods it needs. I do my backups with a stock NetBSD boot disk and dd to an NFS partition. So nyeah.
Also, the ocean is wet, and there is porn on the internet.
Just so you know.
No, they're changing the model to confirm to the observations they already have. Since they're doing the science thang, the next step is to make some predictions based on that model and see how they match with future observations.
I continue to contend that the time to stop them is when you anticipate performance problems. They know how to put files on the server, and I let them make their own decisions on when to do it, advising them when requested or when the need becomes obvious to me. Forcing them to exchange files in some other way will make their lives harder, not easier, causing them to bring in less money, which does not Enhance Shareholder Value. In addition, seemingly arbitrary restrictions (after all, It Worked Before, It Works Elsewhere, and so on) diminish their trust in me and make it harder to get cooperation when I actually need it.
A 100MB email to ten people doesn't come anywhere near choking my mail server, despite the fact that it's made from cheap commodity parts a few years old.
The point being, teach the employees an alternate method to transfer large files and enforce it. From CEO on down.Perhaps I can do this; but why should I? In terms of user interface, email is exactly the right thing for them to use. One of them has a file, and wants the others to end up with it on their own machines. In a single operation, he sends it to the others, and in a single operation, they have it. Putting it on our server is an invitation to leave it there, sucking up server disk space when everyone forgets about it (as opposed to getting caught when they sweep their own machines for bloat) and being inaccessible when they're on the road.
This is not one of those rare occasions when it is necessary to be a BOFH. Just because I personally think email is for text and people who use it for other things are wankers does not mean it makes business sense to enforce this policy in my workplace.
Why? How is 5MB special? My mail server's job, like the jobs of the other servers, is (to the greatest extent possible) to let the users do what they think they need to do. It's sometimes my job to convince them that they don't need to do it, but I don't have especially good arguments against huge emails, nor do I see a need for them. Sure, it's aesthetically un-pleasing to me (base64? Ugh. PowerPoint? Double ugh), but that's not what we call a business case.
My mail server can handle mail up to 2GB. (Beyond that, I suspect I'll run into a 32-bit barrier in at least one of Exim, UW IMAP, and the libraries they use.) As long as they don't do something really stupid like trying to send something that huge over our little T1, it's not a problem.
This is a common policy, but not a universal one and not necessarily a good one. My employer is doing quite well with the policy that happy employees do good work, so we don't spy on them or try to force them to maintain an exact separation between work and home.
The poster used family portraits as an example of how big things are these days, but I'd be surprised if that were really the driving factor here. Think 100MB PowerPoint files: the sales team slings these around like mashed potatoes. But that's OK; our mail server, a cheap PC running Debian+Exim, doesn't even blink, and they understand that it's rarely a good idea to let such things leave our fast network.
Apple is the weaker of the two. Two roughly equal bad guys who fight among themselves => a much better situation than one bad guy who has time to focus on crushing the little guys.
You are quite mistaken. People who are clueless about the GPL (and there are a lot of them) assume this all the time. And others make other incorrect assumptions: for example, that code that is compiled or written with a GPL'ed tool becomes GPL'ed. Few people who have been involved in the debate for a while suffer gross misunderstandings like this, but the general public (and clueless managers) certainly do.
It's not true that you can't link a GPL library into your proprietary code. You can. You just can't distribute it to others in that state. (You can still use it internally.) If you need to distribute proprietary code but want to use GPL code, you just have to keep them at a safe distance from each other: for example, running in separate processes and communicating through IPC or standard I/O is fine. And, of course, this sort of issue is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not to use Linux; it's about integrating GPL code into your code, not merely using them side by side.
Fimbulwinter falls
upon my PRE-less haiku.
Fuck you, Rob Malda.
Seattle autumn
and taking over the world
are on Redmond minds.
Under winter's rain,
their gazes turning southward:
they look to Intel.
Spring's green shoots show them
that their license agreements
will make them money.
Laws bought each summer
strengthen the illegal trust.
No one breaks them up.
No, no, no! It's not just syllables, you have to have a reference to the seasons:
Seattle autumn and taking over the world are on Redmond minds. Under winter's rain, their gazes turning southward: they look to Intel. Spring's green shoots show them that their license agreements will make them money. Laws bought each summer strengthen the illegal trust. No one breaks them up.Irritatingly enough, it's 'standard usage to pluralize an initiali'sm with an apo'strophe. I 'still don't do it.
Google for Gaiacomm. The guy's a loon in the usual fashion of overenthusiastic Tesla fans.
They can't use it in court, but there's no reason a third party couldn't use it to give them an anonymous tip.
The risk from cell phones comes from the fact that you are talking: your mind is on the conversation, not the road. To really solve the problem, one would have to ban talking in cars. That could be... impractical.
Perhaps education would make a difference. There's a lot of seat-belt propaganda, but I haven't seen any "god damn it, pay attention!" propaganda. Too bad, really.
Why? I'd be really amused if the feds tried to arrest every "pirate": there isn't enough room in the jails for half the population, and with most of the wage earners gone, the courts and prisons would run out of money tout de suite.
(Yeah, yeah, in practice they'd pare down their load by focusing on outspoken people with the wrong political views, so I really don't want this. But it's nice to dream.)
But you probably don't want to quench a flood...
There isn't enough information in the announcement to tell if that's what happened here, but if PayPal failed to do their job (e.g., they didn't take reasonable security precautions in proportion to their responsibility), a lawsuit is exactly the right thing. In most (i.e., libertarian rather than anarchist) conceptions of the free market, it's part of the gummint's job to enforce contracts, and there's clearly a contract here, even if some parts are just implied by the nature of the relationship: "in exchange for a cut, we will hold onto your money for you" => "if we fuck up and cause you to lose your money, we'll pony up".