No, its approximately the same resolution as my 24" desktop display (1920x1200) at 50".
I fully intend to replace my 4-arm LCD display rig with a single 50" panel as soon as a good 8K display hits $2000. I'm excited there's a connector for it now.
I believe I'll finally be done buying displays at this point, save for device failure. It's great when technology reaches the "good enough". I'm just not used to it after buying progressively better displays for the past 35 years (that 14" RGB display was so much better than the TV composite on the Apple ][ clone!). But, hey, I learned to program on a discarded 60's TV set, so some of this is simply a matter of comfort and productivity.
There's no point to the major version anymore, the only reason it's ever updated on the kernel is to make things more readable.
Agreed.
Having the year as the leading number doesn't imply major feature changes when you increment it, plus it solves the problem of huge minor version numbers.
It actually creates a problem where there is none. Same with the 2015.2 format, which I thought was the better plan before I read this thread.
Say we've got linux 3.20 now. It's easy for developers to think about what's on deck for 3.21 or 3.22 or 3.23 in terms of 'the next release', 'the one after that', and 'the one we're not really thinking about yet'.
When will those be released? I dunno - every other month, maybe? 2015.3 and 2015.5. Oh, but we slipped a week - now we're at 2015.6 and everybody has already been talking about 2015.5. It's just setting up a point of confusion in an environment without drop-dead release dates. The same applies for the work done in the December-January timeframe, just with the other digit.
What strikes me about that is that 21, 22, and 23 are meaningful for the developers but '3' isn't. So get rid of the 3. Do 22.1 if there's a revision, everybody can use (if $linux_ver > 22) without writing <=> overloaders, and then there's no arbitrary false semantic included any longer.
If releases continue on the every-other-month pace, we've got 322 years before '23' will be larger than '2015', so worrying about large numbers is still premature.
Did anyone ever use average to mean "mode"? I really truly doubt it.
Yes, usually when they're trying to sound smarter than everybody else (and then usually when they're not).
back to TFS's question: you know why Java is such a popular language? Because it's really helpful for helping the bottom 90% of programmers write stable code.
The 5% on the right side of the curve can go off in a corner and bicker about whether their Haskell monads or Python function decorators are more becoming of a "good" programmer, while industry gets back to work to churn out code that get potatoes from Boise to Omaha and helps grandma balance her checkbook.
Any reasonable economist doesn't want to see you using somebody who can implement Shamir's Secret Sharing from memory (on a napkin, just for completeness) writing the potato shipping-manifest code. The best thing you can do for a person is to place them in a position where they're being fully utilized and appreciated for the work they do.
Leave instructions and your password with your attorney? Or set of attorneys in disparate jurisdictions using Shamir's Secret Sharing, if you're totally paranoid?
So your use case allows for reboots - not every one does. And far more use cases allow for scheduled reboots, but not necessarily immediate reboots as soon as a security vulnerability is published.
Fedora-derived (e.g. EL7) and Ubuntu disros can use Redhat's kpatch support (but no patches provided in EL7 -updates yet) whilst SuSE has kGraft which as of November has had a real update stream available. People don't run these things because it's easier than rebooting.
Besides, fix your runtime problems, set up a test cluster, and monitor your systems better - relying on side-effects is never a good plan.
I can't possibly see this ever causing a problem with this because linux is very secure and there is absolutely no way for a malicious user to get elevated access on anything that runs linux. This includes android phones, which are totally invulnerable to hacking.
You should suggest to Linus that he make kernel features configurable so people can do different builds for different targets. Put it in a dot-config file or something. Maybe in a future release...
The Chunnel has been in or on the edge of bankruptcy for most of its existence.
Do you mean that it's been subsidized or that it's like a highly-efficient non-profit? The difference is pretty important relative to its perceived value. And I'm assuming they have a huge bond repayment, which would make any such endeavor challenging over a long timeframe (as with most worthwhile efforts).
It is a classic mistake to measure the benefit of infrastructure on the basis of "does it pay for itself in ticket sales?". The benefit to society may be much larger than the direct income generated.
If that's true, then the ticket prices can be raised - the amount people will pay for a thing represents how much they value it.
If it's a commercial benefit, then those costs are merely passed along to the next consumer in the chain on a given product.
Granted, this excludes unaccounted externalities where license have been granted to externalize (e.g. subsidies to airlines to fly out of Heathrow to Paris), but it's better to fix those problems than subsidize on a guess.
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in how Group Policy receives and applies policy data when a domain-joined system connects to a domain controller. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would have to convince a victim with a domain-configured system to connect to an attacker-controlled network.
An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete control of an affected system and then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. The security update addresses the vulnerability by improving how domain-configured systems connect to domain controllers prior to Group Policy accepting configuration data....
Although Windows Server 2003 is an affected product, Microsoft is not issuing an update for it because the comprehensive architectural changes required would jeopardize system stability and cause application compatibility problems. Microsoft recommends that security-conscious customers upgrade to a later operating system in order to keep pace with the changing security threat landscape and benefit from the more robust protections that later operating systems provide.
Which would seem to put the XP/2003 lineage one malware download away from connecting to a botnet that spoke just enough Domain protocol to exploit it and being pwned.
NSA could have such an exploit ready next week, Russian mafia in a month. The Prize is controlling close to 19% of the installed base.
Seriously, why would SpaceX give a shit about promotion on Slashdot?
Don't worry - the AC is just upset that Musk and Co. are building the future whist he merely spends his life complaining about things in front of his terminal.
Why the fuck should they demand money for other people's work?
Well, demanding is obviously the wrong word (see story title). But the distribution *is* the point of contact with the user. If anybody can collect a donation, the distribution is the most likely place for that to happen.
I suspect if ElementaryOS (whatever that is...) gets overrun with donations, they'll contribute upstream in one fashion or the other. Whatever amount they do give will likely be more than most distros currently give upstream.
It looks to me like this is a move to protect regular users from malicious plugins. If you want to use plugins that aren't Mozilla approved, you just have to have a bit of a clue.
A "bit of a clue" is setting an about:config variable. I'd be totally fine with that (I depend on at least one extension AMO won't host).
Build-your-own means I won't be getting security updates from Fedora, and hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing is silly. Sure, somebody will set up a repo, but it's clearly not *just* aimed at keeping novice users from shooting themselves in the foot.
How much you wanna bet this presages awful Firefox changes that normally an extension would fix but those won't be allowed? Mozilla doesn't have staff to get the essentials done much less tend to a walled garden.
The real take home lesson for this is not to put much faith in any observational study.
Right - there was a study out just a month or two ago that demonstrated that a few specific genotypes process alcohol differently than others and do have a real benefit. No doubt _this_ study was in publication before that one came out.
Most of these broad pronouncements for a population are worthless - humans aren't so homogenous.
Still, unless you know you have that genotype, you may be doing yourself harm, especially in regards to cancer, so take it easy on the hootch.
Yes, get a Vizio. I have a couple here and they're the best option under $5K. They do minimal processing out of the box and they can be adjusted to do even less, and give you a good picture - if you look at the wall-o-screen at the store, the Vizios will probably look best because they're not usually set to amp up the constrast and saturation to blow people's eyes out (apparently that sells TV's to muggles). More topically, they are available without any 'smart' crap, so you can hook up your preferred 'smart' head that has to compete in a market (e.g. Roku, Chromecast) just fine, and when those are obsolete in three years, toss 'em in the bin and plug in the replacement without having to trip over built-in nonsense. They're also cheap enough that you can afford to tack on a 3-year no-questions replacement warranty because you don't want to be paying for parts on any of these things.
If you have >$5K to spend, some of the brands that you grew up with in the 70's have models for professionals in that range that have better pictures. Whoever gets the first 50" 8K for under $2K with minimal processing gets my money, but that's for my monitor, so slightly different criteria.
Or is it an actual solar cells of some sort that directly produce electricity? They really need some sort of better name to differentiate between these...
No, it's the kind of solar that kills all those birds from the trucks having to haul all those raw and intermediate materials and finished goods around.
No, it's the kind of solar that poisons Chinese children from all the exotic materials that are needed to be refined and disposed of.
C'mon, let's not pretend that there are any perfect solutions - there are only trade-offs. Apple is choosing the trade-off that it thinks will project the best marketing image to its customers whilst having the lowest downside profile in their eyes, and hopefully Greenpeace which has found Apple to be one of its favorite whipping boys.
Greenpeace will probably still picket it, though - most energy policy objections are emotional, not rational. Their founder proselytizes nuclear for being zero-CO2 even though they picket that too. He feels good about finding solutions, while the protesters mostly feel good about being mad.
The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats
Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.
Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.
The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.
All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.
The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.
why the hell any member of the EU Parliament would think that using anything from Microsoft isn't a stupid idea is beyond me.
Well, because they want the feature set. The EU should start dumping truckloads of money on Inverse and Samba until the open source solution is superior.
Sogo is close to being done (the hard bits like single instance modifications of repeating events aren't) and Samba4 is teetering on stilts; though it works in ideal circumstances, lots of problems aren't handled and there is missing functionality.
except, update it to reflect the electronic age. keep the general ideas, though.
and enforce THAT and stop the feature-creep!
JHFC, how many times do we have to do the same experiment before people will believe that a government, based on a monopoly on violence, will always end in abuse of the People. By definition, at its very core, inevitably, every single time it's been tried.
We have nearly three hundred years of political, social, scientific, philosophical, psychological, and mathematical (e.g. game theoretical) advancement since the authors who influenced Madison put pen to paper.
To re-purpose the same old, demonstrably failed ideas would be the biggest waste of an opportunity ever conceived.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner, 1867
Is it, in the end, the outcomes that really matter? That we should have a government force them to act because the outcome would be better?
The idea of putting governments in charge killed 350 million people in just the last century alone, most of the deaths not being from war but governments killing their own people. Parents of Type I diabetics give their kids insulin > 99.9% of the time - there's not much a regime of forced medication can do in comparison to the damage just allowing governments is demonstrated to do.
How can they be missing? It's just digital data. Don't these bit-tards make backups?
Bit-tards don't make backups, or else they wouldn't be bit-tards. And then you have people who leave all their private keys online and people steal those and transfer the money away. And then you have people who run a Ponzi scheme and never had the funds in the first place, but shuttled the investments away and are living like kings in Patagonia.
I like how the USG has to set up a special TV network just to get a pro-democracy viewpoint on the air.
If only they could get ABC/NBC/CBS to air such content... I suppose they don't transmit in SD any longer and Fox offered but the USG said, "no, we want to promote US culture, not give the Castro regime prima facie evidence against it."
Fuel reprocessing actually raises costs rather than reducing them.
Only if you accept externalizing costs on future generations as a $0 cost.
New technologies, such as pebble beds, thorium fluoride, traveling wave reactors, are decades away, even if they work at all.
Baloney - Integral Fast Reactors were ready for commercialization in the early 90's. Al Gore was the chief mover in the effort to cancel the program after the demonstration reactor ran for a couple years without problems. It's not like he had any motive to see a solution to greenhouse gases get mothballed.
IFR's are, of course, famous for consuming the existing nuclear waste (turning 300,000 year problems into 60-year problems) and recognizing the costs now. That's why they were designed and built in the first place.
Would it take decades to build the 1200 plants we'll need as a species? You betcha - we should have started 20 years ago; Obama won't even return Branson's phone calls about funding it and he's been trying since 2009 - the problem is political, not technological or fiscal. AGW is a perfect power grab and all technological 'solutions' are exactly non-solutions for that very reason. Politicians are demonstrably more dangerous than CO2 or methane.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that beyond human perception?
No, its approximately the same resolution as my 24" desktop display (1920x1200) at 50".
I fully intend to replace my 4-arm LCD display rig with a single 50" panel as soon as a good 8K display hits $2000. I'm excited there's a connector for it now.
I believe I'll finally be done buying displays at this point, save for device failure. It's great when technology reaches the "good enough". I'm just not used to it after buying progressively better displays for the past 35 years (that 14" RGB display was so much better than the TV composite on the Apple ][ clone!). But, hey, I learned to program on a discarded 60's TV set, so some of this is simply a matter of comfort and productivity.
There's no point to the major version anymore, the only reason it's ever updated on the kernel is to make things more readable.
Agreed.
Having the year as the leading number doesn't imply major feature changes when you increment it, plus it solves the problem of huge minor version numbers.
It actually creates a problem where there is none. Same with the 2015.2 format, which I thought was the better plan before I read this thread.
Say we've got linux 3.20 now. It's easy for developers to think about what's on deck for 3.21 or 3.22 or 3.23 in terms of 'the next release', 'the one after that', and 'the one we're not really thinking about yet'.
When will those be released? I dunno - every other month, maybe? 2015.3 and 2015.5. Oh, but we slipped a week - now we're at 2015.6 and everybody has already been talking about 2015.5. It's just setting up a point of confusion in an environment without drop-dead release dates. The same applies for the work done in the December-January timeframe, just with the other digit.
What strikes me about that is that 21, 22, and 23 are meaningful for the developers but '3' isn't. So get rid of the 3. Do 22.1 if there's a revision, everybody can use (if $linux_ver > 22) without writing <=> overloaders, and then there's no arbitrary false semantic included any longer.
If releases continue on the every-other-month pace, we've got 322 years before '23' will be larger than '2015', so worrying about large numbers is still premature.
Did anyone ever use average to mean "mode"? I really truly doubt it.
Yes, usually when they're trying to sound smarter than everybody else (and then usually when they're not).
back to TFS's question: you know why Java is such a popular language? Because it's really helpful for helping the bottom 90% of programmers write stable code.
The 5% on the right side of the curve can go off in a corner and bicker about whether their Haskell monads or Python function decorators are more becoming of a "good" programmer, while industry gets back to work to churn out code that get potatoes from Boise to Omaha and helps grandma balance her checkbook.
Any reasonable economist doesn't want to see you using somebody who can implement Shamir's Secret Sharing from memory (on a napkin, just for completeness) writing the potato shipping-manifest code. The best thing you can do for a person is to place them in a position where they're being fully utilized and appreciated for the work they do.
To simply delegate removal by someone upon death?
Leave instructions and your password with your attorney? Or set of attorneys in disparate jurisdictions using Shamir's Secret Sharing, if you're totally paranoid?
AIX had this in 1990s.
and users too!
LISP machines had this in the 70's, so there's that.
So your use case allows for reboots - not every one does. And far more use cases allow for scheduled reboots, but not necessarily immediate reboots as soon as a security vulnerability is published.
Fedora-derived (e.g. EL7) and Ubuntu disros can use Redhat's kpatch support (but no patches provided in EL7 -updates yet) whilst SuSE has kGraft which as of November has had a real update stream available. People don't run these things because it's easier than rebooting.
Besides, fix your runtime problems, set up a test cluster, and monitor your systems better - relying on side-effects is never a good plan.
I love recompiling kernels and updating config files whenever I buy a new mouse.
Stop building your own proprietary PCIe mouse cards, knucklehead. You can buy a decent USB mouse for $12 now.
I can't possibly see this ever causing a problem with this because linux is very secure and there is absolutely no way for a malicious user to get elevated access on anything that runs linux. This includes android phones, which are totally invulnerable to hacking.
You should suggest to Linus that he make kernel features configurable so people can do different builds for different targets. Put it in a dot-config file or something. Maybe in a future release...
The Chunnel has been in or on the edge of bankruptcy for most of its existence.
Do you mean that it's been subsidized or that it's like a highly-efficient non-profit? The difference is pretty important relative to its perceived value. And I'm assuming they have a huge bond repayment, which would make any such endeavor challenging over a long timeframe (as with most worthwhile efforts).
It is a classic mistake to measure the benefit of infrastructure on the basis of "does it pay for itself in ticket sales?". The benefit to society may be much larger than the direct income generated.
If that's true, then the ticket prices can be raised - the amount people will pay for a thing represents how much they value it.
If it's a commercial benefit, then those costs are merely passed along to the next consumer in the chain on a given product.
Granted, this excludes unaccounted externalities where license have been granted to externalize (e.g. subsidies to airlines to fly out of Heathrow to Paris), but it's better to fix those problems than subsidize on a guess.
And then don't connect to WiFi if you don't trust the extra "features"
Are there displays that don't work as a basic display without a WiFi connection (for whatever contrived reason)?
Given the value of spy data, this isn't an impossible "feature" to implement.
We've been waiting for that vulnerability that will finally create such havoc on XP that people will abandon it.
The security bulletin is vague, as usual, but it does say:
Which would seem to put the XP/2003 lineage one malware download away from connecting to a botnet that spoke just enough Domain protocol to exploit it and being pwned.
NSA could have such an exploit ready next week, Russian mafia in a month. The Prize is controlling close to 19% of the installed base.
Seriously, why would SpaceX give a shit about promotion on Slashdot?
Don't worry - the AC is just upset that Musk and Co. are building the future whist he merely spends his life complaining about things in front of his terminal.
Why the fuck should they demand money for other people's work?
Well, demanding is obviously the wrong word (see story title). But the distribution *is* the point of contact with the user. If anybody can collect a donation, the distribution is the most likely place for that to happen.
I suspect if ElementaryOS (whatever that is...) gets overrun with donations, they'll contribute upstream in one fashion or the other. Whatever amount they do give will likely be more than most distros currently give upstream.
It looks to me like this is a move to protect regular users from malicious plugins. If you want to use plugins that aren't Mozilla approved, you just have to have a bit of a clue.
A "bit of a clue" is setting an about:config variable. I'd be totally fine with that (I depend on at least one extension AMO won't host).
Build-your-own means I won't be getting security updates from Fedora, and hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing is silly. Sure, somebody will set up a repo, but it's clearly not *just* aimed at keeping novice users from shooting themselves in the foot.
How much you wanna bet this presages awful Firefox changes that normally an extension would fix but those won't be allowed? Mozilla doesn't have staff to get the essentials done much less tend to a walled garden.
The real take home lesson for this is not to put much faith in any observational study.
Right - there was a study out just a month or two ago that demonstrated that a few specific genotypes process alcohol differently than others and do have a real benefit. No doubt _this_ study was in publication before that one came out.
Most of these broad pronouncements for a population are worthless - humans aren't so homogenous.
Still, unless you know you have that genotype, you may be doing yourself harm, especially in regards to cancer, so take it easy on the hootch.
Now what am I going to buy? Sony? Vizio?
Yes, get a Vizio. I have a couple here and they're the best option under $5K. They do minimal processing out of the box and they can be adjusted to do even less, and give you a good picture - if you look at the wall-o-screen at the store, the Vizios will probably look best because they're not usually set to amp up the constrast and saturation to blow people's eyes out (apparently that sells TV's to muggles). More topically, they are available without any 'smart' crap, so you can hook up your preferred 'smart' head that has to compete in a market (e.g. Roku, Chromecast) just fine, and when those are obsolete in three years, toss 'em in the bin and plug in the replacement without having to trip over built-in nonsense. They're also cheap enough that you can afford to tack on a 3-year no-questions replacement warranty because you don't want to be paying for parts on any of these things.
If you have >$5K to spend, some of the brands that you grew up with in the 70's have models for professionals in that range that have better pictures. Whoever gets the first 50" 8K for under $2K with minimal processing gets my money, but that's for my monitor, so slightly different criteria.
Or is it an actual solar cells of some sort that directly produce electricity?
They really need some sort of better name to differentiate between these...
No, it's the kind of solar that kills all those birds from the trucks having to haul all those raw and intermediate materials and finished goods around.
No, it's the kind of solar that poisons Chinese children from all the exotic materials that are needed to be refined and disposed of.
C'mon, let's not pretend that there are any perfect solutions - there are only trade-offs. Apple is choosing the trade-off that it thinks will project the best marketing image to its customers whilst having the lowest downside profile in their eyes, and hopefully Greenpeace which has found Apple to be one of its favorite whipping boys.
Greenpeace will probably still picket it, though - most energy policy objections are emotional, not rational. Their founder proselytizes nuclear for being zero-CO2 even though they picket that too. He feels good about finding solutions, while the protesters mostly feel good about being mad.
The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats
Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.
Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.
The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.
All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.
The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.
why the hell any member of the EU Parliament would think that using anything from Microsoft isn't a stupid idea is beyond me.
Well, because they want the feature set. The EU should start dumping truckloads of money on Inverse and Samba until the open source solution is superior.
Sogo is close to being done (the hard bits like single instance modifications of repeating events aren't) and Samba4 is teetering on stilts; though it works in ideal circumstances, lots of problems aren't handled and there is missing functionality.
except, update it to reflect the electronic age. keep the general ideas, though.
and enforce THAT and stop the feature-creep!
JHFC, how many times do we have to do the same experiment before people will believe that a government, based on a monopoly on violence, will always end in abuse of the People. By definition, at its very core, inevitably, every single time it's been tried.
We have nearly three hundred years of political, social, scientific, philosophical, psychological, and mathematical (e.g. game theoretical) advancement since the authors who influenced Madison put pen to paper.
To re-purpose the same old, demonstrably failed ideas would be the biggest waste of an opportunity ever conceived.
Do you let them say no to the insulin?
Is it, in the end, the outcomes that really matter? That we should have a government force them to act because the outcome would be better?
The idea of putting governments in charge killed 350 million people in just the last century alone, most of the deaths not being from war but governments killing their own people. Parents of Type I diabetics give their kids insulin > 99.9% of the time - there's not much a regime of forced medication can do in comparison to the damage just allowing governments is demonstrated to do.
Do you still say yes to their existence?
How can they be missing? It's just digital data. Don't these bit-tards make backups?
Bit-tards don't make backups, or else they wouldn't be bit-tards. And then you have people who leave all their private keys online and people steal those and transfer the money away. And then you have people who run a Ponzi scheme and never had the funds in the first place, but shuttled the investments away and are living like kings in Patagonia.
I like how the USG has to set up a special TV network just to get a pro-democracy viewpoint on the air.
If only they could get ABC/NBC/CBS to air such content... I suppose they don't transmit in SD any longer and Fox offered but the USG said, "no, we want to promote US culture, not give the Castro regime prima facie evidence against it."
Fuel reprocessing actually raises costs rather than reducing them.
Only if you accept externalizing costs on future generations as a $0 cost.
New technologies, such as pebble beds, thorium fluoride, traveling wave reactors, are decades away, even if they work at all.
Baloney - Integral Fast Reactors were ready for commercialization in the early 90's. Al Gore was the chief mover in the effort to cancel the program after the demonstration reactor ran for a couple years without problems. It's not like he had any motive to see a solution to greenhouse gases get mothballed.
IFR's are, of course, famous for consuming the existing nuclear waste (turning 300,000 year problems into 60-year problems) and recognizing the costs now. That's why they were designed and built in the first place.
Would it take decades to build the 1200 plants we'll need as a species? You betcha - we should have started 20 years ago; Obama won't even return Branson's phone calls about funding it and he's been trying since 2009 - the problem is political, not technological or fiscal. AGW is a perfect power grab and all technological 'solutions' are exactly non-solutions for that very reason. Politicians are demonstrably more dangerous than CO2 or methane.