Just curious: is there another Eric Raymond with a different middle name that the open source community runs the risk of confusing with this Raymond? If not, why the (therefor apparently labored) inclusion of "S"?
Making browser login track the login Google apps is an obvious solution to this problem. Perhaps there's a better one, though.
How about: when the user logs into a google account that is different than that which is signed into Chrome, put up a dialog noting this and offering to sign out of Chrome. AFAIK this covers every case that I'm imagining the chrome devs might be "concerned" about, and is very up front rather than being silent and behind peoples' backs.
"Conserving energy has been essential for humans' survival, as it allowed us to be more efficient in searching for food and shelter, competing for sexual partners, and avoiding predators."
I picture being spread eagled out on a couch, someone coming by and telling me I'm lazy, and in reply quoting the above. Maybe making especially direct eye contact during the "competing for sexual partners" clause.
I suppose it's possible that the course leader has some intuition about how blockchain might be applicable to the homeless in particular. To brainstorm: perhaps like tracking barter between homeless so they can accumulate (non-financial) credit, for example (but in such an example, who runs the servers and why?).
With all these supposed big corporate interests in blockchain, I'd like it if someone gave a brief primer on what types of problems actually benefit from a decentralized ledger. Digital cash is a good fit, but what else? These big corporations can easily maintain servers, whether by themselves or in a consortium, so what benefit is provided by the decentralization, as far as these corporations are concerned?
How to do really well in the cryptocurrency marketplace: Don't. Buy. The. Empty. Fucking. Bag.
I agree with what I interpret your advice to mean, which is "do not invest in cryptocurrency". I think it's sound advice.
I'll also make the point that despite that advice being sound, cryptocurrency is here to stay... not because there will be an endless stream of "investors" in it (there won't, at least not of significant volume), but because it will continue to enable decentralized transactions, an aspect which makes it both very useful and disruptive. Prediction: the only way cryptocurrency will ever go away is if there are severe criminal penalties worldwide for using it in any way, shape, or form.
You bought a security with no inherent value, based on the idea that someone else would, for some reason, pay more for it than you did.
People can't stop thinking about cryptocurrency in terms of get-rich-quick, or even get-rich-period. Cryptocurrency is NOT ABOUT INVESTING, no more than Euros are about investing. Cryptocurrency is a transaction facilitator, the novel thing about it being that said transactions are beyond the control of the banking industry. Ah well; in the same way that lotteries are taxes on people who are bad at math, crypto has the apparent side effect of being a tax on people who are bad at finance. Having been harassed for being a nerd in middle school, I'm feeling a certain sanguinity about it all.
Transactions on cards are catagued, with your name on them, by the banking industry (I assume you're savvy enough to infer the privacy cost, so I won't go into that). Past that, said banking industry can -- whether for their own reasons or because they're mandated to by legal dictum -- preclude you from spending your money the way you want; want to spend it on tech from some country that has a squabble with the US, or an outright ban? You can't.
That's what's different. The above doesn't apply to cryptocurrency.
Count me out unless they come up with some ironclad Do Not Track agreements
No "agreement" that can be administratively undone ("oops, we made a mistake!") will ever be good enough. I doubt I'll ever own one of these spy toys, but if I do it will only be because it's running completely on open source.
Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform for users.
Hmmm. "Best" isn't defined here, not by you and not by context, other than the vague inference that because it grew it must be the best. Facebook grew because it was in the right spot at the right time, and now the "network effect" of its accumulated base is a significant barrier to entry to competition.
He's completed it! For some reason it looks a lot like a submarine with rocket fins bolted on, but I'm sure it's the real deal... Elon even said that anyone who doesn't like it is a pedophile.
Using LineageOS (which you recommend, and which I do) means that whether the manufacturer (in your example, Motorola) puts out OS updates is irrelevant... since the updates come via LineageOS. So is it on principle -- namely to punish Motorola for not putting out OS updates, even though you don't use them -- that you're promising your next hardware won't be Moto? Just curious.
Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?
Regardless of whether it technically invades privacy, don't pretend there's nothing to be unhappy about. If you go out and walk around and have a few conversations with people, you probably don't so much mind that a few interlopers will hear various fragments of conversation. But if there's some guy following you around writing things in a notebook and making it a point to photograph you, is the fact that he's technically not violating your privacy going to make you feel good?
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
Um... ok, you "win", let's say that capitalism doesn't by definition require regulation. Now that that epic and meaningful battle is over, can we get on with talking about how regulation is needed EVEN IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE DEFINITION?
You get what you pay for. They thought they could get much more than they paid for. 100% their fault.
For my education, what would you point out as the flaws in the following analogy:
I consider buying a house or moving into a condo. I go with the condo, happy that I don't have to maintain a yard.
One night a fire starts on the first level of the building. I'm trapped in the fifth floor, and die. I couldn't get out because the heat melted the window shut.
The building manager tells my relatives that it's 100% my fault for not having chosen to buy a house instead of moving into a condo, that I got what I paid for.
While it is "foreseeable" that I might have had different windows on a house I own, or that I'd be able to get out of the fire regardless of having the same windows because there are ground-floor doors in a house, is it really useful to talk about it being "100% my fault"? Should I, as a condo buyer, have had some kind of vague dread that makes me fundamentally at fault for whatever differences there are in the situation, and prevents me from talking about ways the building manager could improve things?
Slashdot Mirror
Eric S. Raymond
Just curious: is there another Eric Raymond with a different middle name that the open source community runs the risk of confusing with this Raymond? If not, why the (therefor apparently labored) inclusion of "S"?
-- not criticizing, just genuinely curious
Anyone know if there's a warrant canary at DuckDuckGo?
Making browser login track the login Google apps is an obvious solution to this problem. Perhaps there's a better one, though.
How about: when the user logs into a google account that is different than that which is signed into Chrome, put up a dialog noting this and offering to sign out of Chrome. AFAIK this covers every case that I'm imagining the chrome devs might be "concerned" about, and is very up front rather than being silent and behind peoples' backs.
"Conserving energy has been essential for humans' survival, as it allowed us to be more efficient in searching for food and shelter, competing for sexual partners, and avoiding predators."
I picture being spread eagled out on a couch, someone coming by and telling me I'm lazy, and in reply quoting the above. Maybe making especially direct eye contact during the "competing for sexual partners" clause.
I suppose it's possible that the course leader has some intuition about how blockchain might be applicable to the homeless in particular. To brainstorm: perhaps like tracking barter between homeless so they can accumulate (non-financial) credit, for example (but in such an example, who runs the servers and why?).
With all these supposed big corporate interests in blockchain, I'd like it if someone gave a brief primer on what types of problems actually benefit from a decentralized ledger. Digital cash is a good fit, but what else? These big corporations can easily maintain servers, whether by themselves or in a consortium, so what benefit is provided by the decentralization, as far as these corporations are concerned?
True dichotomies can never mix with false dichotomies.
a consortium of researchers who aim to provide economics insights with a more realistic basis
"More realistic" than what? What is the yardstick or basis of comparison here, and how do they evidence whether they are in fact hitting their mark?
2 performance cores that deliver up to 15 percent speeds
Woah, gotta get me some of THAT. How do they do it ?!?
Trump To Target Foreign Meddling In US Elections With Sanctions Order
... and in other news, OJ has not stopped looking for the real killer...
Ok, if cryptocurrencies disappear, I owe you a coke.
How to do really well in the cryptocurrency marketplace: Don't. Buy. The. Empty. Fucking. Bag.
I agree with what I interpret your advice to mean, which is "do not invest in cryptocurrency". I think it's sound advice.
I'll also make the point that despite that advice being sound, cryptocurrency is here to stay... not because there will be an endless stream of "investors" in it (there won't, at least not of significant volume), but because it will continue to enable decentralized transactions, an aspect which makes it both very useful and disruptive. Prediction: the only way cryptocurrency will ever go away is if there are severe criminal penalties worldwide for using it in any way, shape, or form.
Can you use that prepaid gift card to pay anyone for literally anything they're willing to sell?
You bought a security with no inherent value, based on the idea that someone else would, for some reason, pay more for it than you did.
People can't stop thinking about cryptocurrency in terms of get-rich-quick, or even get-rich-period. Cryptocurrency is NOT ABOUT INVESTING, no more than Euros are about investing. Cryptocurrency is a transaction facilitator, the novel thing about it being that said transactions are beyond the control of the banking industry. Ah well; in the same way that lotteries are taxes on people who are bad at math, crypto has the apparent side effect of being a tax on people who are bad at finance. Having been harassed for being a nerd in middle school, I'm feeling a certain sanguinity about it all.
How is this different from a pre-paid debit card?
Transactions on cards are catagued, with your name on them, by the banking industry (I assume you're savvy enough to infer the privacy cost, so I won't go into that). Past that, said banking industry can -- whether for their own reasons or because they're mandated to by legal dictum -- preclude you from spending your money the way you want; want to spend it on tech from some country that has a squabble with the US, or an outright ban? You can't.
That's what's different. The above doesn't apply to cryptocurrency.
Count me out unless they come up with some ironclad Do Not Track agreements
No "agreement" that can be administratively undone ("oops, we made a mistake!") will ever be good enough. I doubt I'll ever own one of these spy toys, but if I do it will only be because it's running completely on open source.
Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform for users.
Hmmm. "Best" isn't defined here, not by you and not by context, other than the vague inference that because it grew it must be the best. Facebook grew because it was in the right spot at the right time, and now the "network effect" of its accumulated base is a significant barrier to entry to competition.
Going behind the back of and trying to undermine the Chief Executive in this fashion is unprofessional, cowardly, and unconstitutional.
Sometimes, like Snowden, you work with what you have.
Guns don't cause violence, but they do escalate it once someone decides to go that route.
People kill people... and people with guns kill many, many more people than those without them.
I just hope Elon builds the rocket in time.
He's completed it! For some reason it looks a lot like a submarine with rocket fins bolted on, but I'm sure it's the real deal... Elon even said that anyone who doesn't like it is a pedophile.
'Calculators Killed the Standard Statistical Table'
That's the name of my favorite Buggles song!
I think.
Using LineageOS (which you recommend, and which I do) means that whether the manufacturer (in your example, Motorola) puts out OS updates is irrelevant... since the updates come via LineageOS. So is it on principle -- namely to punish Motorola for not putting out OS updates, even though you don't use them -- that you're promising your next hardware won't be Moto? Just curious.
Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?
Regardless of whether it technically invades privacy, don't pretend there's nothing to be unhappy about. If you go out and walk around and have a few conversations with people, you probably don't so much mind that a few interlopers will hear various fragments of conversation. But if there's some guy following you around writing things in a notebook and making it a point to photograph you, is the fact that he's technically not violating your privacy going to make you feel good?
dear god... the cyanide pills, they do NOTHING!
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
Um... ok, you "win", let's say that capitalism doesn't by definition require regulation. Now that that epic and meaningful battle is over, can we get on with talking about how regulation is needed EVEN IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE DEFINITION?
You get what you pay for. They thought they could get much more than they paid for. 100% their fault.
For my education, what would you point out as the flaws in the following analogy:
While it is "foreseeable" that I might have had different windows on a house I own, or that I'd be able to get out of the fire regardless of having the same windows because there are ground-floor doors in a house, is it really useful to talk about it being "100% my fault"? Should I, as a condo buyer, have had some kind of vague dread that makes me fundamentally at fault for whatever differences there are in the situation, and prevents me from talking about ways the building manager could improve things?