As I've addressed this before, I'm going to copy and (mostly) pasta:
He did? Is this about that guy from the Sudan who offered bin Laden to the US in 1996, which turned out not to be credible?
'Cause that 9/11 commission report states "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." Which looks pretty definite. Except it continues, "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
Which, of course, does't cut any ice with you, does it? How faith-based.
but what we're doing is really for the greater good of the Internet, we're setting up communication networks for black hats,
What does that even mean? I've read it a dozen times now, and I still can't tell what he's saying.
The only thing they're doing by holding onto the security bugs is making the internet a more dangerous place. Yes, Firefox should have been written better in the first place. Yes, the security team should have found these already. No, none of that justifies the childish actions they're taking now.
Or perhaps they're just talking smack, trying to look like big bad grayhats because they found a single flaw. I'd like to think that.
Good for them, doing the right thing here and all.
It's kind of funny how the security bulleting reads "Vulnerability in Vector Markup Language Could Allow Remote Code Execution". We're not saying that it does, but we think it's possible.
The point is that changes will happen. These changes could include a massive die-off, which I think we can agree is an undesirable outcome.
But you're right; to avert these scenarios, global cooperation would be needed. Disparate nations would have to, over the bleating objections of industry, pass regulation for which the payoff would be the aversion of a long-term disaster. And as we all know, that sort of thing could never happen.
Thank you, to all the dorks who buy overpriced, half-baked, barely-functional products like this one. You fund the research and development that makes these things useful for the rest of us. We salute you.
Why would 65 million years be a better time period? Our ancestors weren't humans 65 million years ago. I'm pretty sure they weren't even primates. And anyway, it's been considerably warmer than it was before the last ice age, but when it was, Manhattan was under water.
Yes, the earth was once much warmer. New York City was underwater then. If you're not shilling for Voluntary Human Extinction, I'd expect you to have a bit of concern for how disastrous this would be for our civilization. (Which, personally, I'm kind of fond of.) Where does this ridiculously long view come from? It's like someone considered environmentalists looking fifty or a hundred years in the future and said, "oh yeah? well, in a hundred million years, it won't matter!".
In the 1960s, global population growth was around 2%. Doubling every thirty years or so; very bad. However, the growth rate peaked at 2.19% in 1963, and has never been higher. It's been steadily decreasing, and it's now around 1.17%. (Doubling every sixty years.) The number of children actually born in a given year peaked in 1989, and has been decreasing since then.
This isn't to say that overpopulation is taking care of itself; these things happen because people fight to make birth control available and so forth. The trend can be encouraged or discouraged by public policy decisions. And, of course, there's no guarantee that ten billion people (the likely asymptote) will be living comfortably here.
Then my good man please explain to me why temps actually dropped during the CO2 explosion casued by our industrial revolution.
Partly because of smog. Particulate crap thrown into the atmosphere effectively dims the sun. It also causes smog, acid rain, all sorts of other bad things.) Because the air is cleaner than it was, this effect is less than it was. See here.
The computer models they use for these gloom and doom predictions are nothing we should be looking at for reliable info. They are built on flawed and incomplete data sets. Think about it. We can't even reliably predict the weather for a week yet we are supposed to beleive they can predict the weather decades or centuries into the future? Get real. Our climate systems are incredibly complex. We do not understand all the dynamics at work here.
It's incredible how close the thoughts "we can't change carbon emissions; it'll destroy the economy!" and "what's a few billion here and there dead in a massive die-off?" are, isn't it? Since they have in common an unwillingness to do a damned thing about it.
"Rising carbon levels could cause serious ecosystem problem in the future. Changes of an unspecified nature will have to be made if we want to preserve our civilization. We'll have to at least look into reducing carbon consumption---conserving fossil fuels and using more renewables, to start with."
"You want us to halt all energy generation and transport not powered by renewables?"
"No, what kind of an idiot would--"
"You'll kill billions. Not to mention the effect on the economy!"
If you could loosen your grip on your Canyonero just ever so slightly, you'd notice that smaller changes now can obviate the need for larger changes later. If carbon emissions continue to grow, it won't be liberals destroying society, it'll be rising waters; it'll be massive migration; it'll be ever more violent storm seasons.
Wealth typically comes to those who have motivation/drive and put in the time and effort to achieve their goals.
Would you like some cake with your social darwinism, sir? You must be tired after conclusively explaining how the executive class works several hundred times as hard as your average janitor or factory laborer, and how anyone could do it if they were only worthy enough. If only we could aspire to emulate their superheroic Randian examples!
It's not outside the scope of possibilities to develop giant ships that serve as floating cities, for example.
'Cause that's way easier than reducing carbon emissions. Can't touch that sacred carbon, no sir.
A cabal of ivory tower dwelling socialists, knowing themselves to be immune to the consequences of their actions (it is called tenure, look it up) are spreading FUD about Global Warming in yet another attempt to destroy industrial civilization. Being in control of the national science foundation and most other funding sources for science, they ruthlessly quash all disent by simply defining any who disagree with the party line as "not a scientist" thus removing all funding and forcing the poor bastard into private industry where they can be disregarded as a corporate whore.
> You think that a vague desire to destroy the world muwahaha,
Not destroy the world, just Western Civilization. Find an accredited university where 25% of the faculty believe in the ideals of Western Civilization and I'd bet good money you will have found Bob Jones or Liberty University.
Sorry guys, the science related to global warming has been so politicized about all you can do at this point is ask us to take it on your word, and that ain't worth spit anymore. On every other major issue of the latter 20th century the same names associated with global warming have been on the wrong side, starting with that arrogant prick who couldn't even convince his home state to vote for him: Al Gore. But not just the politicians, the scientists as well. Scientists as a group have a long record of being on the wrong side of history, enviromentalists were among the worst of the bunch when it came to aiding and abeting the Soviets.
Because, umm, I wasn't using Linux then? Because it's not insane to ask that programs be written right in the first place? Because auditing an incredibly widely-used library isn't too much to ask? Because crypto is a subtle art, very easy to get wrong, and there aren't that many people who can competently audit crypto code? Because I do file a ton of bug reports (for what I can reproduce) and patches (for what I can code), but I never got around to fuzz-testing gzip, which might have revealed some of its issues?
Indeed, Tenex did it first, but UNIX does it now -- specifically bash, but other modern shells as well. Even Windows' cmd.exe has a tab-completion feature, though it has to be enabled in the registry, and it kind of sucks.
I understand that tab completion is a good idea. I agree that tab completion is a good idea. How exactly is UNIX "so far behind"? Current tab-completion works not only on command names, but paths and program parameters. It allows for filtering by file type. (For instance, typing ps2pdf will only display.ps files in the current directory.)
Of course, that's all coded into bash (via a supplementary configuration package) instead of done on a per-application basis. Was that what you meant?
Yes, PHP is cobbled together in a grotesque way that's like Perl with all the elegance drained off. It's the GUI of programming languages. It's popular, but that doesn't mean it's good.
Keyboard shortcuts are very discoverable.
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
Am I the only person who learned keyboard shortcuts by noticing them written on menus? You know, when you hit Edit->Cut, it says Ctrl-X next to "Cut", so that you'll know next time?
I understand that bash has a raft of extensions, but sh is its older, standards-compliant moral equivalent. And the original question was really "who uses csh?", which is, apparently, not "nobody" but rather "almost nobody".
I'm on Ubuntu Dapper, which uses GNOME 2.14. (I spend a lot of time in gedit.) What you might want to do is attach a debugger to the hung process then send it signal 11 and get a backtrace to see where it's infinite-looping. Might help the developers. This is assuming you care enough to go through that mess.
I'm inclined to believe this an actual problem because I had a similar one with gnome-cups-icon, where it would eat up all idle CPU time for no apparent reason. It was a real bug, and it did in fact just get fixed. (The bug was in cupsys, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
Turn off the politics section if it bothers you that much. Sheesh.
As I've addressed this before, I'm going to copy and (mostly) pasta:
He did? Is this about that guy from the Sudan who offered bin Laden to the US in 1996, which turned out not to be credible?
'Cause that 9/11 commission report states "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." Which looks pretty definite. Except it continues, "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
Which, of course, does't cut any ice with you, does it? How faith-based.
The only thing they're doing by holding onto the security bugs is making the internet a more dangerous place. Yes, Firefox should have been written better in the first place. Yes, the security team should have found these already. No, none of that justifies the childish actions they're taking now.
Or perhaps they're just talking smack, trying to look like big bad grayhats because they found a single flaw. I'd like to think that.
Good for them, doing the right thing here and all.
It's kind of funny how the security bulleting reads "Vulnerability in Vector Markup Language Could Allow Remote Code Execution". We're not saying that it does, but we think it's possible.
Gee. Ya think?
The point is that changes will happen. These changes could include a massive die-off, which I think we can agree is an undesirable outcome.
But you're right; to avert these scenarios, global cooperation would be needed. Disparate nations would have to, over the bleating objections of industry, pass regulation for which the payoff would be the aversion of a long-term disaster. And as we all know, that sort of thing could never happen.
Thank you, to all the dorks who buy overpriced, half-baked, barely-functional products like this one. You fund the research and development that makes these things useful for the rest of us. We salute you.
Why would 65 million years be a better time period? Our ancestors weren't humans 65 million years ago. I'm pretty sure they weren't even primates. And anyway, it's been considerably warmer than it was before the last ice age, but when it was, Manhattan was under water.
Yes, the earth was once much warmer. New York City was underwater then. If you're not shilling for Voluntary Human Extinction, I'd expect you to have a bit of concern for how disastrous this would be for our civilization. (Which, personally, I'm kind of fond of.) Where does this ridiculously long view come from? It's like someone considered environmentalists looking fifty or a hundred years in the future and said, "oh yeah? well, in a hundred million years, it won't matter!".
Total midyear population, 1950-2050.
In the 1960s, global population growth was around 2%. Doubling every thirty years or so; very bad. However, the growth rate peaked at 2.19% in 1963, and has never been higher. It's been steadily decreasing, and it's now around 1.17%. (Doubling every sixty years.) The number of children actually born in a given year peaked in 1989, and has been decreasing since then.
This isn't to say that overpopulation is taking care of itself; these things happen because people fight to make birth control available and so forth. The trend can be encouraged or discouraged by public policy decisions. And, of course, there's no guarantee that ten billion people (the likely asymptote) will be living comfortably here.
Can't you get around that by running the software in a VM and screenshotting that? I'd think that would get past any tomfoolery on the guest system.
"In the 70s scientists were predicting an ice age"
"Climate modeling isn't scientific"
It's incredible how close the thoughts "we can't change carbon emissions; it'll destroy the economy!" and "what's a few billion here and there dead in a massive die-off?" are, isn't it? Since they have in common an unwillingness to do a damned thing about it.
"Rising carbon levels could cause serious ecosystem problem in the future. Changes of an unspecified nature will have to be made if we want to preserve our civilization. We'll have to at least look into reducing carbon consumption---conserving fossil fuels and using more renewables, to start with."
"You want us to halt all energy generation and transport not powered by renewables?"
"No, what kind of an idiot would--"
"You'll kill billions. Not to mention the effect on the economy!"
If you could loosen your grip on your Canyonero just ever so slightly, you'd notice that smaller changes now can obviate the need for larger changes later. If carbon emissions continue to grow, it won't be liberals destroying society, it'll be rising waters; it'll be massive migration; it'll be ever more violent storm seasons.
Damn that Ar-Pharazon and his desire for immortality! We'd still have a flat earth if it wasn't for him!
'Cause that's way easier than reducing carbon emissions. Can't touch that sacred carbon, no sir.
Fantastic, eh?
Or maybe wait for the Rapture! I hear it has better theme music.
Because, umm, I wasn't using Linux then? Because it's not insane to ask that programs be written right in the first place? Because auditing an incredibly widely-used library isn't too much to ask? Because crypto is a subtle art, very easy to get wrong, and there aren't that many people who can competently audit crypto code? Because I do file a ton of bug reports (for what I can reproduce) and patches (for what I can code), but I never got around to fuzz-testing gzip, which might have revealed some of its issues?
Indeed, Tenex did it first, but UNIX does it now -- specifically bash, but other modern shells as well. Even Windows' cmd.exe has a tab-completion feature, though it has to be enabled in the registry, and it kind of sucks.
.ps files in the current directory.)
I understand that tab completion is a good idea. I agree that tab completion is a good idea. How exactly is UNIX "so far behind"? Current tab-completion works not only on command names, but paths and program parameters. It allows for filtering by file type. (For instance, typing ps2pdf will only display
Yes, PHP is cobbled together in a grotesque way that's like Perl with all the elegance drained off. It's the GUI of programming languages. It's popular, but that doesn't mean it's good.
Am I the only person who learned keyboard shortcuts by noticing them written on menus? You know, when you hit Edit->Cut, it says Ctrl-X next to "Cut", so that you'll know next time?
I understand that bash has a raft of extensions, but sh is its older, standards-compliant moral equivalent. And the original question was really "who uses csh?", which is, apparently, not "nobody" but rather "almost nobody".
I'm on Ubuntu Dapper, which uses GNOME 2.14. (I spend a lot of time in gedit.) What you might want to do is attach a debugger to the hung process then send it signal 11 and get a backtrace to see where it's infinite-looping. Might help the developers. This is assuming you care enough to go through that mess.
I'm inclined to believe this an actual problem because I had a similar one with gnome-cups-icon, where it would eat up all idle CPU time for no apparent reason. It was a real bug, and it did in fact just get fixed. (The bug was in cupsys, though.)