With all the layers of caching between an application and the spinning drive, isn't/tmp (and every other filesystem) essentially in-memory anyway (at least for short-lived files)?
Not necessarily. It costs significant money to get a treatment researched and approved. If the treatment is not patent-able, there is little incentive to do it.
Your point was funny and well illustrated, but I'm not sure it's correct. Is Debian actually biased toward the GPL over other F/OSS licenses? Their Debian Free Software Guidelines and Software License FAQ explicitly suggests the BSD and MIT licenses for authors who want their code to be useable by everyone. They also call out the Artistic License by name in the "What Does Free Mean?" section of the "Introduction to Debian".
I've never thought of Debian as particularly pro-GPL in particular so much as pro-Free Software in general.
No way. I'm not the OP, but GoDaddy would be off the table for any project I'd ever be involved with. There's nothing they do that a competitor can't do for about the same price (or cheaper) but without the associated ethical and PR nightmares.
My company would serve that for under $400 per month, and bandwidth isn't even our core focus. You can do much, much better than your current arrangement.
I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me.
There's no reason for you to have that attitude, though. I can guarantee that gays would find your ignorant ass as repulsive and undesirable as women do. You could walk buck naked down the middle of a Gay Pride parade without anyone coming on to you.
Although, quite frankly, I suspect you'd find that Gay Pride parade a lot more liberating than you think.
OK, those are good points that I can agree with. I guess I was reacting to the position I've heard all too often (which you admittedly weren't advancing) that the privacy controls are the start and end of protecting your information. That always horrifies me.
This should be 100%. I suspect the other 42% don't know how or don't understand the ramifications. (Mild hyperbole, but you know what I mean.)
I couldn't disagree more. It should be closer to 0%, because otherwise you're working under the assumptions that 1) Facebook will always correctly honor its permissions and 2) you have them configured correctly. My Facebook data is world-readable and that's a reminder to never post anything that I wouldn't want my mom, boss, or loan officer to see.
Suppose Facebook has yet another bug where other users can work around your privacy settings. Hey, there's roc97007 making a bong out of a potato in his friend-only photo album! Suppose you later decide to loosen your restrictions a little. Oops! Forgot about that joke picture with the transvestite, huh? No thanks. The only safe approach is to act as though anything you post will be world-readable and act accordingly.
Teachers aren't mystically unquantifiable flowers; but in a world where people can, with a straight face, propose 'Hey, just tot up their students' scores on the standardized test! Now you know which teachers are good!' without any sort of correction for such minor matters as 'student demographics' it is hard to be uniformly optimistic about teacher evaluations...
That's a very fair point. Which metric are the unions proposing to measure their members' progress with? They don't like the current options; which proposals are they countering with?
Is there an encryption system available where if you put in a specifically bad password it damages the data forever?
People arguing that it isn't possible are correct, but missing the point. Why couldn't you have some sort of hardware-based encryption that manages this?
Imagine a SATA adapter that uses a ceramic-encased FPGA to hold a decryption key and uses that device to transparently encrypt/decrypt data on drives connected to it. A driver prompts users to enter a password, then sends that password via a non-standard SATA command. If the adapter receives the correct password, it engages the FPGA to provide access. If it receives the wrong password, it burns the FPGA and permanently destroys the decryption key.
Is some variation of this scheme available to "regular" people? I could see it being incredibly useful in any data-sensitive industry from banking to health care: if/when a computer is stolen, criminals wouldn't even have an opportunity to brute-force the encryption password.
In a child pornography case, you might spend more time in prison for refusing to decrypt your hard drive than you would have spent if you had been convicted.
Possibly, but 1) your fellow prisoners will probably appreciate that you're "sticking it to The Man" and make it a whole lot easier on you than if you'd been convicted of possessing child porn:
Convict: They say you had child porn?
You: That's f'ing disgusting. Hell no. They were just trying to pin stuff on me. You know how that goes, right?
Convict: True dat.
And 2) when all is said and done, you're not stuck with "possession of child porn" on a felony conviction and you don't have to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
Given a choice of 5 years in prison for felony possession of CP, or a vastly easier 10 years in prison followed by a clean record, which would you choose?
(I'd personally suggest "none of the above - don't possess CP", but that's a different discussion.
I agree with everything, but the point of the Emacs server is so that when a program runs $EDITOR, you quickly get a new Emacs window with access to all the buffers you're using in other windows. Say you launch the client to edit an email. You can also copy-and-paste from the program you're editing in another Emacs window, or from a shell session, or from any of the other 1,000 buffers you're using elsewhere.
It only takes 2-3 seconds for me to launch Emacs from a cold start, but the client/server benefits are far more interesting than just that time savings.
Your chart reading skills are lacking. Their GDP per capita is 24th, or almost exactly in the middle. Texas ranks second by population. If you could actually get TX and CA to go in on this together, you could practically guarantee success.
But I've heard that a 747 can do a barrel roll, which would probably be vastly more inconvenient for anyone trying to break through the cabin door than it would be for the strapped-in pilots who've been upside down 1,000 times during their previous military training.
In fact, several websites need to remove the PlayBook browser from their "mobile device" list and allow it to access the standard desktop-targetted site.
I have a hard time believing there were more than a couple of websites that took the Playbook browser into consideration at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Shoot. You win.
It is nothing but kabuki theater
Closer to bukkake, by most accounts.
With all the layers of caching between an application and the spinning drive, isn't /tmp (and every other filesystem) essentially in-memory anyway (at least for short-lived files)?
So how do you explain all the intelligent people using it?
[citation needed]
Not necessarily. It costs significant money to get a treatment researched and approved. If the treatment is not patent-able, there is little incentive to do it.
And yet they still make aspirin.
Your point was funny and well illustrated, but I'm not sure it's correct. Is Debian actually biased toward the GPL over other F/OSS licenses? Their Debian Free Software Guidelines and Software License FAQ explicitly suggests the BSD and MIT licenses for authors who want their code to be useable by everyone. They also call out the Artistic License by name in the "What Does Free Mean?" section of the "Introduction to Debian".
I've never thought of Debian as particularly pro-GPL in particular so much as pro-Free Software in general.
"If you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."
No way. I'm not the OP, but GoDaddy would be off the table for any project I'd ever be involved with. There's nothing they do that a competitor can't do for about the same price (or cheaper) but without the associated ethical and PR nightmares.
My company would serve that for under $400 per month, and bandwidth isn't even our core focus. You can do much, much better than your current arrangement.
I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me.
There's no reason for you to have that attitude, though. I can guarantee that gays would find your ignorant ass as repulsive and undesirable as women do. You could walk buck naked down the middle of a Gay Pride parade without anyone coming on to you.
Although, quite frankly, I suspect you'd find that Gay Pride parade a lot more liberating than you think.
I'm too lazy to RTFA, but I wonder: was he targeting the kid because he was gay, or because he didn't like him?
OK, those are good points that I can agree with. I guess I was reacting to the position I've heard all too often (which you admittedly weren't advancing) that the privacy controls are the start and end of protecting your information. That always horrifies me.
This should be 100%. I suspect the other 42% don't know how or don't understand the ramifications. (Mild hyperbole, but you know what I mean.)
I couldn't disagree more. It should be closer to 0%, because otherwise you're working under the assumptions that 1) Facebook will always correctly honor its permissions and 2) you have them configured correctly. My Facebook data is world-readable and that's a reminder to never post anything that I wouldn't want my mom, boss, or loan officer to see.
Suppose Facebook has yet another bug where other users can work around your privacy settings. Hey, there's roc97007 making a bong out of a potato in his friend-only photo album! Suppose you later decide to loosen your restrictions a little. Oops! Forgot about that joke picture with the transvestite, huh? No thanks. The only safe approach is to act as though anything you post will be world-readable and act accordingly.
To become a eunuch go to page 82. To hit puberty and discover unix, go to page 64.
Why would those have different paths?
Are any current TPM implementations self-destructive on authentication failure?
Teachers aren't mystically unquantifiable flowers; but in a world where people can, with a straight face, propose 'Hey, just tot up their students' scores on the standardized test! Now you know which teachers are good!' without any sort of correction for such minor matters as 'student demographics' it is hard to be uniformly optimistic about teacher evaluations...
That's a very fair point. Which metric are the unions proposing to measure their members' progress with? They don't like the current options; which proposals are they countering with?
Eep! I meant to start that with "People arguing that it isn't possible in software are correct".
Is there an encryption system available where if you put in a specifically bad password it damages the data forever?
People arguing that it isn't possible are correct, but missing the point. Why couldn't you have some sort of hardware-based encryption that manages this?
Imagine a SATA adapter that uses a ceramic-encased FPGA to hold a decryption key and uses that device to transparently encrypt/decrypt data on drives connected to it. A driver prompts users to enter a password, then sends that password via a non-standard SATA command. If the adapter receives the correct password, it engages the FPGA to provide access. If it receives the wrong password, it burns the FPGA and permanently destroys the decryption key.
Is some variation of this scheme available to "regular" people? I could see it being incredibly useful in any data-sensitive industry from banking to health care: if/when a computer is stolen, criminals wouldn't even have an opportunity to brute-force the encryption password.
In a child pornography case, you might spend more time in prison for refusing to decrypt your hard drive than you would have spent if you had been convicted.
Possibly, but 1) your fellow prisoners will probably appreciate that you're "sticking it to The Man" and make it a whole lot easier on you than if you'd been convicted of possessing child porn:
Convict: They say you had child porn?
You: That's f'ing disgusting. Hell no. They were just trying to pin stuff on me. You know how that goes, right?
Convict: True dat.
And 2) when all is said and done, you're not stuck with "possession of child porn" on a felony conviction and you don't have to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
Given a choice of 5 years in prison for felony possession of CP, or a vastly easier 10 years in prison followed by a clean record, which would you choose?
(I'd personally suggest "none of the above - don't possess CP", but that's a different discussion.
this alleged scumbag stole millions of $$$ and helped the housing bubble become a bubble
Do you have proof of that? If so, congratulations: the government hasn't proven it yet.
For what it's worth, you're probably completely correct. But everyone gets to exercise their Constitutional rights, not just people we like.
I agree with everything, but the point of the Emacs server is so that when a program runs $EDITOR, you quickly get a new Emacs window with access to all the buffers you're using in other windows. Say you launch the client to edit an email. You can also copy-and-paste from the program you're editing in another Emacs window, or from a shell session, or from any of the other 1,000 buffers you're using elsewhere.
It only takes 2-3 seconds for me to launch Emacs from a cold start, but the client/server benefits are far more interesting than just that time savings.
The Rhode Island State Airlines
AKA "Bob has a Cessna".
Try an 1/8th, and you rank 24th by population.
Your chart reading skills are lacking. Their GDP per capita is 24th, or almost exactly in the middle. Texas ranks second by population. If you could actually get TX and CA to go in on this together, you could practically guarantee success.
But I've heard that a 747 can do a barrel roll, which would probably be vastly more inconvenient for anyone trying to break through the cabin door than it would be for the strapped-in pilots who've been upside down 1,000 times during their previous military training.
In fact, several websites need to remove the PlayBook browser from their "mobile device" list and allow it to access the standard desktop-targetted site.
I have a hard time believing there were more than a couple of websites that took the Playbook browser into consideration at all.