And a mostly overlapping set of people wouldn't know what a potentiometer is, and a slighly different set wouldn't know that they're the same thing. However, they're all properly used the same way.:)
The reason to know to do it the "old way" (it's the current way, too) is because under certain circumstances, it's the only way that will work, short of guessing. My point is that while digital got more people into messing with photography (which is good), those people also didn't bother learning anything about it. They're *forced* to half-ass it by taking hundreds of pictures instead of just learning how to do the right thing and taking one or three pictures.
Yes, and 40 year old Nikon cameras still work just fine, too. Hell, most of the lenses and viewfinders are still in excellent condition, not that half the digital camera people would know what a light meter is for.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
I do understand what you're saying, and I'm just saying that your conclusion is naive. I consider the correct course of action is to yell at Apple and stop using the feature until they disclose enough information to have an informed decision about the nature of the data collection and possible retention. If everybody assumes that Apple is not doing anything just because they're Apple, it sets a bad precendent with them that may lead them to take advantage of that trust. You can help safeguard this by raising hell over the possibility, since they did not take acceptable measures to disclose the potential data collection, nor to ask permission.
Don't make broad generalizations about what intelligent people think. Quite a few people that are intelligent don't like information about their habits being collection, and even more take exception with same being done without their permission.
I suggested that it would be safest to assume the feature was allowing for data collection and should be treated as a privacy concern. I did not say that Apple should be treated as an enemy in the process. Others posting on this story have said this, just not me. I think hell should be raised over this just to help ensure that Apple, and others, don't take home the idea that they can do such things in the future without permission, and not expect bad press over it.
I *would* suggest that Apple proceeded improperly and should be chastised for doing so. I don't suggest furthering conspiracy theories nor adding Apple to a do-not-buy list until more information is available.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
You obviously have a good idea what is necessary for these sorts of features to work. I'm talking about your average computer user. The sort that buys a new PC because their copy of Windows is loaded down with spyware/malware. The sort that pays people to come to their house to hook their cable/DSL modem up. *They* don't know what is required for something like this, so they very likely don't realize that they are transmitting any personal data to Apple.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Have you examined the data that is sent to Apple as part of the recommendation query? Do you know that they don't send anything unique to your machine, or some other data stored on that machine (ie: machine owner data). Even if they don't do that at all, they still could be sending an installation ID that uniquely identifies your copy of iTunes. This, itself, is a breach of privacy, although not such a major one. Should you decide to use iTunes, or should they decide to start trying to acquire identifying information, they can now easily associate your unique iTunes ID with your personal ID.
For an iTMS user, Apple can easily associate your copy of iTunes to your personal data, if those choose to do so. You don't know that they aren't doing this, and then associating the playback data transmitted for recommendations.
There is no chance of libel here, since I made no statement that Apple was *doing* any of this. It is possible that they are doing these things. They have the capability, and what it being argued is whether they have chosen to exercise that capability.
As I said before, and as you quoted, the safe bet is to assume that they are tracking data. If it turns out that they aren't, then you've lost nothing other than the use of the feature until Apple issues a statement. If they *are* tracking data, and you have turned the feature off, they haven't acquired your listening data. If you've taken your stance, and they are tracking, and you leave the feature on, now they have compromised some amount of your privacy, without your consent, and potentially without your knowledge.
The only reason that this community considers Apple or Google to be Good is because neither has been noticed doing anything it considers Bad. We don't know for sure what either company is collecting, or what their future will hold. All we can say is that today, they are doing what we are considering Good, and that yesterday, they were Good.
It's likely safe to assume that Apple isn't doing anything nefarious with the data they could be collecting. Most of the closer to Bad behavior from Apple has involved business relationships and licensing issues within those relationships. (I'm thinking of the way they behaved while there were Mac-clones out there.)
It isn't particuarly useful to compare Apple to Sony or MS. Sony really hit the Bad list over the DRM fiasco. Apple could manage to do something like that with their next product release. Apple has removed features from iTunes in the past, they could do the same in the future. Perhaps Apple marketing got more say, and actually did decide to use this song data for other purposes.
I'd agree that the people going off and blasting Apple as evil for this are jumping the gun, but that doesn't mean they're wrong just because we like Apple.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, the safe bet *is* to assume that they are tracking data, until confirmed otherwise. It is trivial for this sort of data to be stored and mined, rather than used expressly for music matching and then discarded.
Personally, I wouldn't be worried about it had Apple disclosed what they were doing up front. Many iTunes users are not technical and don't understand that this sort of feature requires a least a moderate amount of identifying information. Since iTunes never tells the user that the software is doing this, nor asks for permission, it is a problem. You have to just know that the technology behind marketplace recommendations requires this sort of thing.
I would consider this to be useful, but I'm also annoyed that it's on unless I know to turn it off.
Maybe it shouldn't be enabled by default? Maybe it shouldn't hide what they are collecting? Maybe it isn't DRM and your examples have no relation? Maybe it isn't a conspiracy when it's confirmed?
Apple did not inform the user, did not ask permission, and did not disable by default. A simple dialogue box on install, and a mention in the EULA would have be sufficient. Apple chose to have this data transmitted, and possibly harvest the data, and possibly sell the data, and all without disclosure or consent.
This is improper behavior. Quit apologising for Apple, they're a big company, and they can issue a statement without your help.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
The only reason that people aren't bashing the hell out of this is because it's Apple. They are likely tracking your music habits to a unique identifier. They did so without your consent and without informing you. They did not have you opt-in to the process, you have to go out of your way to opt out.
So, since flavor-of-the-moment did it, it's OK? The fact is that this is a breach of trust, and Apple *should* be blasted for it, instead of all the apologists coming out blathering on about how Apple is so godly and good and would never do any nasty. They very much do nasty things, and this is another one of them.
It's not just physical healing, but the body also works things into long-term memory and does mental "repair" while asleep. At five hours, the poster would have made it through REM sleep into deep sleep, but may be starting into another REM cycle when waking up. This will cause additional mental and physical problems, as well as making it more difficult to "wake up" after becoming conscious.
Many people see the effects when they learn something physically new, then go to sleep, and are better at it when they wake up. Not getting enough rest will cause loss of coordination, balance problems, concentration problems, shortened memory retention, make learning more difficult, and weaken the immune system, among other things.
Well, you could do RAID5+1, which is a mirrored RAID5. This can protect against (N/2)+1 disc failures at best, and four disc failures at worst (the same two from each set).
None of this protects against filesystem failure or accidental deletion. You need to make your backup offline to protect against that sort of thing.
If you're talking about "giving your first born son" by contract, then it should be news. If you have an arrangment for adoption, that is different from giving. The latter implies an exchange of property. If your ex had a contract that stated that she agrees to allow adoption in return for some obligation being fulfilled, then that might not even be legal. If neither side sued, and the State didn't take an interest, there there is little to confirm or deny the legality.
Actually, if you did that enough, you would run faul of various stalking laws. This isn't because of the 4th amendment, but, instead, laws in every State.
The telephone records are generally regarded by people as private data. There is an expectation of privacy about who you've communicated with and when. You may give that up when you agreed to the phone contract, but that could be struck down, potentially.
There are many things that the government prevents you from doing. You can contractually give your first born son to someone, but it would be illegal to actually fulfill that contract term, so it is invalid. Should courts looks the same way about telephone call privacy, it would be the same deal.
Agreed about c, as long as you keep it restrictured to the speed of light in vacuum. I would regard that as the maximum speed of light, and then you could infer that it is constant in all frames of reference, as per relativity.
I would somewhat disagree with laws of physics always being consistent. I say this only because I don't place faith in our laws being completely correct, though.;) There is too much we don't know for me to be willing to say that our laws of physics are always consistent and correct.
Our understanding is that gravity does not slow light down. No guarantees about that until we understand how gravity works. Based on our current understanding, gravity does not slow light, but it does shift frequency (as you said) and change the path of light. If you think of light as only EM propogation, then it does not slow. If you think of light as a particle, then it should be possible to slow. We haven't observed this, but I don't know if there are any refined theories predicting it either way. However, while I enjoy following current theory, but I am by no means more than a novice!
Also, when considering such things as relativity and frames of reference, remember that we only really have one frame of reference. Things may not be as they appear, from our limited vantage point. There are refinements to quantum theory all the time, and that plays havoc on what is current for particle and field interaction.
No no, the GP is correct. When you're talking about the speed of light, 'c', you're talking about the speed of light in a vacuum. As mentioned, there are ways of making light take more time to travel the same distance, by passing it through various substances. Diffraction is not the only thing that happens when you shine light into something. Gravity also can have an effect on the speed of light.
The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all frames of reference.
That passage says the States decide how elections happen. It gives Congress the ability to ovveride the States by creating regulations to set the time and manner for choosing Senators, and to set the time, place, and manner of choosing Representatives. Senators had been appointed by the States, so there was no election for them. This means that they are solely saying that they can meddle with how/where/when election for Representatives occur.
A later passage gives Congress the ability to set the time and date for choosing electors. This is not the actual vote, however.
It gives no power over the method of choosing electors, State elections, Presidential elections, etc. They could require voting by missile for Reps and Senators, and the States could still use paper for the Presidential elections.
They could also do it the semi-mechanical way that many Northeast (and probably others) use. You have a machine with levers. You set the levers the way that you want, and the machine doesn't allow an incorrect number of choices. When you're done, you pull a handle. This creates a paper card that has marked out your choices. You put your card into a box, after checking it to make sure it was created correctly. The machine tallies the numbers of votes, with the paper cards serving as auditing backup.
If you wanted to be sure, you would release your machine tallies when voting ends, and then always perform a manual recount of the cards, to verify the machine accuracy.
You can have a Federally standardized voting procedure because the method of voting is constitutionally left up to the States. We had to get an amendment to insure than every 18 year old could vote, but nothing stops a state from allowing a 14 year old to vote; this is because States control the election process. If you didn't like this, it could be changed corruptly through using the threat of revocation of Federal monies, or properly, by a constitional amendment.
The sed lines are removing the "updated" string from each processed line. Sort is grouping lines, uniq is removing all duplicated entries.
sed -e(expression) 's(search)/(U|updated)(search regex)/(empty replacement text)/g(global)'
So:
1
2
1 (Updated)
1 (updated)
2 (Updated)
Becomes: (through sed)
1
2
1
1
2
Becomes: (through sort)
1
1
1
2
2
Would drop to simply: (through uniq)
1
2
And then "wc" counts the lines.
In this case, the GP compressed it to 747 unique Microsoft flaws, and 1050 unique unix flaws.
And yes, learn regex! It is extremely useful, and can help manipulate massive data sets easily and quickly. "man 7 regex" is a good place to start.:) There are much better places to start, mind you.
There are reasons for war, but they are usually not good enough reasons. In the case of Iraq, they are not definitely not good enough. Aiding a rebellion/revolution is very different from helping fight in the same. For example, the US has a history in supplying anyone willing to pay; this is acceptable. The US has a history of committing troops to foreign civil wars; this is not acceptable.
You go to war when the loss of life helps to guarantee the lives of more than you may lose. You go to war when you feel the cause is worthy of loss of life. I disagree with forcing people to fight in a war that they don't believe in. This is why I am incredibly opposed to any form of draft or conscription. There were good reasons for the US Revolution and the US Civil War, for example.
You don't go to war because you dislike a country, a leader, or a government, and you certainly don't go to war for profit. All of those things are examples of reasons that are not good enough. I am willing to fight for my countrymen and for my freedom, but I'm not willing to put my life on the line for someone in another country that isn't willing to do the same, and I'm certainly not willing to kill for that. Some people are willing, and power to them to be free to exercise that will. Likewise, power to people that object and speak out about others doing that.
In the case of the Iraqi conflict, part of that is due to terrorism, a large part is due to Hussein double-crossing the US, and another large part is for oil. I'd say that the US government is playing the humanitarian, but seeking profit and revenge. It had justification through the UN resolution on Iraq, for what that's worth, so it was no illegal action, as many purport. I'd hold that it is unconstitutional for the US Federal government to take the action, but it was legal under UN rules, and that's what people tend to talk about.
There is a lot of corruption, but look for it in the places that it actually lies. If you look at the history the Western world has with Iraq, and with the history that the US has there, in particular, you find all that you need.
1534 Jul 24, Jacques Cartier landed in Canada and claimed it for France. Jacques Cartier while probing for a northern route to Asia visited Labrador and said: "Fit only for wild beasts... This must be the land God gave to Cain." [see May 10]
(NG, V184, No. 4, 10/1993, p. 4)(MC, 7/24/02)
1534 May 10, Jacques Cartier reached Newfoundland.
(CFA, '96, p.46)
2a) No, and it probably isn't next year, either. Most people that I have conversations with about such things either believe that it's for the best or don't believe me at all. Unless people stop believing things just because Congress said so, or the TV/newspaper/etc said so (or we replace those with something trustworthy), this attitude is not likely to change. People seem to be too lazy to actually verify what they hear.
2b) Yes, I can remember having contempt for France for as long as I knew their history. My humor about France hasn't changed in at least 20 years (coincidentally, the period over which I've made jokes at France's expense). My opinion of France went down over Iraq II, but not because they opposed it. It was because of the backroom deals that they were brokering with Iraq. I also oppose the US meddling in foreign governments. If it weren't for the treaties and such that France had agreed to, I wouldn't care that they were making deals with Iraq.
3) You forgot a significant portion of Africa from the list of places with reason to hate France.
1/4/5) I agree! New France jokes would be very amusing.;-)
Seriously, Slashdot is indicitive of the follow-the-leader mentality just as much as Fark, Digg, Kuroshin, or most anywhere else. People like to fit in, they like being modded up, and they're often somewhat afraid of standing out for voicing a different opinion.
The WinTV-USB2 has some support for Linux, provided by a hack that uses the Windows drivers and a download of the firmware. It doesn't work with a lot of software, unfortunately. They also *can* have enough lag to make it impossible to play video games through them, though not everyone has that problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And a mostly overlapping set of people wouldn't know what a potentiometer is, and a slighly different set wouldn't know that they're the same thing. However, they're all properly used the same way. :)
The reason to know to do it the "old way" (it's the current way, too) is because under certain circumstances, it's the only way that will work, short of guessing. My point is that while digital got more people into messing with photography (which is good), those people also didn't bother learning anything about it. They're *forced* to half-ass it by taking hundreds of pictures instead of just learning how to do the right thing and taking one or three pictures.
Yes, and 40 year old Nikon cameras still work just fine, too. Hell, most of the lenses and viewfinders are still in excellent condition, not that half the digital camera people would know what a light meter is for.
I do understand what you're saying, and I'm just saying that your conclusion is naive. I consider the correct course of action is to yell at Apple and stop using the feature until they disclose enough information to have an informed decision about the nature of the data collection and possible retention. If everybody assumes that Apple is not doing anything just because they're Apple, it sets a bad precendent with them that may lead them to take advantage of that trust. You can help safeguard this by raising hell over the possibility, since they did not take acceptable measures to disclose the potential data collection, nor to ask permission.
Don't make broad generalizations about what intelligent people think. Quite a few people that are intelligent don't like information about their habits being collection, and even more take exception with same being done without their permission.
I suggested that it would be safest to assume the feature was allowing for data collection and should be treated as a privacy concern. I did not say that Apple should be treated as an enemy in the process. Others posting on this story have said this, just not me. I think hell should be raised over this just to help ensure that Apple, and others, don't take home the idea that they can do such things in the future without permission, and not expect bad press over it.
I *would* suggest that Apple proceeded improperly and should be chastised for doing so. I don't suggest furthering conspiracy theories nor adding Apple to a do-not-buy list until more information is available.
You obviously have a good idea what is necessary for these sorts of features to work. I'm talking about your average computer user. The sort that buys a new PC because their copy of Windows is loaded down with spyware/malware. The sort that pays people to come to their house to hook their cable/DSL modem up. *They* don't know what is required for something like this, so they very likely don't realize that they are transmitting any personal data to Apple.
Have you examined the data that is sent to Apple as part of the recommendation query? Do you know that they don't send anything unique to your machine, or some other data stored on that machine (ie: machine owner data). Even if they don't do that at all, they still could be sending an installation ID that uniquely identifies your copy of iTunes. This, itself, is a breach of privacy, although not such a major one. Should you decide to use iTunes, or should they decide to start trying to acquire identifying information, they can now easily associate your unique iTunes ID with your personal ID.
For an iTMS user, Apple can easily associate your copy of iTunes to your personal data, if those choose to do so. You don't know that they aren't doing this, and then associating the playback data transmitted for recommendations.
There is no chance of libel here, since I made no statement that Apple was *doing* any of this. It is possible that they are doing these things. They have the capability, and what it being argued is whether they have chosen to exercise that capability.
As I said before, and as you quoted, the safe bet is to assume that they are tracking data. If it turns out that they aren't, then you've lost nothing other than the use of the feature until Apple issues a statement. If they *are* tracking data, and you have turned the feature off, they haven't acquired your listening data. If you've taken your stance, and they are tracking, and you leave the feature on, now they have compromised some amount of your privacy, without your consent, and potentially without your knowledge.
The only reason that this community considers Apple or Google to be Good is because neither has been noticed doing anything it considers Bad. We don't know for sure what either company is collecting, or what their future will hold. All we can say is that today, they are doing what we are considering Good, and that yesterday, they were Good.
It's likely safe to assume that Apple isn't doing anything nefarious with the data they could be collecting. Most of the closer to Bad behavior from Apple has involved business relationships and licensing issues within those relationships. (I'm thinking of the way they behaved while there were Mac-clones out there.)
It isn't particuarly useful to compare Apple to Sony or MS. Sony really hit the Bad list over the DRM fiasco. Apple could manage to do something like that with their next product release. Apple has removed features from iTunes in the past, they could do the same in the future. Perhaps Apple marketing got more say, and actually did decide to use this song data for other purposes.
I'd agree that the people going off and blasting Apple as evil for this are jumping the gun, but that doesn't mean they're wrong just because we like Apple.
Unfortunately, the safe bet *is* to assume that they are tracking data, until confirmed otherwise. It is trivial for this sort of data to be stored and mined, rather than used expressly for music matching and then discarded.
Personally, I wouldn't be worried about it had Apple disclosed what they were doing up front. Many iTunes users are not technical and don't understand that this sort of feature requires a least a moderate amount of identifying information. Since iTunes never tells the user that the software is doing this, nor asks for permission, it is a problem. You have to just know that the technology behind marketplace recommendations requires this sort of thing.
I would consider this to be useful, but I'm also annoyed that it's on unless I know to turn it off.
Maybe it shouldn't be enabled by default? Maybe it shouldn't hide what they are collecting? Maybe it isn't DRM and your examples have no relation? Maybe it isn't a conspiracy when it's confirmed?
Apple did not inform the user, did not ask permission, and did not disable by default. A simple dialogue box on install, and a mention in the EULA would have be sufficient. Apple chose to have this data transmitted, and possibly harvest the data, and possibly sell the data, and all without disclosure or consent.
This is improper behavior. Quit apologising for Apple, they're a big company, and they can issue a statement without your help.
The only reason that people aren't bashing the hell out of this is because it's Apple. They are likely tracking your music habits to a unique identifier. They did so without your consent and without informing you. They did not have you opt-in to the process, you have to go out of your way to opt out.
So, since flavor-of-the-moment did it, it's OK? The fact is that this is a breach of trust, and Apple *should* be blasted for it, instead of all the apologists coming out blathering on about how Apple is so godly and good and would never do any nasty. They very much do nasty things, and this is another one of them.
It's not just physical healing, but the body also works things into long-term memory and does mental "repair" while asleep. At five hours, the poster would have made it through REM sleep into deep sleep, but may be starting into another REM cycle when waking up. This will cause additional mental and physical problems, as well as making it more difficult to "wake up" after becoming conscious.
Many people see the effects when they learn something physically new, then go to sleep, and are better at it when they wake up. Not getting enough rest will cause loss of coordination, balance problems, concentration problems, shortened memory retention, make learning more difficult, and weaken the immune system, among other things.
Well, you could do RAID5+1, which is a mirrored RAID5. This can protect against (N/2)+1 disc failures at best, and four disc failures at worst (the same two from each set).
None of this protects against filesystem failure or accidental deletion. You need to make your backup offline to protect against that sort of thing.
Except nobody called anybody, and your analogy has no relation. This was an automated system response to a computer generated query.
Would it be illegal for you to convince 30 friends to continously check their mail box?
How about convincing them to call a voice response unit?
There is no human interaction involved by the school in having someone refreshing the web page. The computer transmits the page automatically.
If you're talking about "giving your first born son" by contract, then it should be news. If you have an arrangment for adoption, that is different from giving. The latter implies an exchange of property. If your ex had a contract that stated that she agrees to allow adoption in return for some obligation being fulfilled, then that might not even be legal. If neither side sued, and the State didn't take an interest, there there is little to confirm or deny the legality.
Actually, if you did that enough, you would run faul of various stalking laws. This isn't because of the 4th amendment, but, instead, laws in every State.
The telephone records are generally regarded by people as private data. There is an expectation of privacy about who you've communicated with and when. You may give that up when you agreed to the phone contract, but that could be struck down, potentially.
There are many things that the government prevents you from doing. You can contractually give your first born son to someone, but it would be illegal to actually fulfill that contract term, so it is invalid. Should courts looks the same way about telephone call privacy, it would be the same deal.
Agreed about c, as long as you keep it restrictured to the speed of light in vacuum. I would regard that as the maximum speed of light, and then you could infer that it is constant in all frames of reference, as per relativity.
;) There is too much we don't know for me to be willing to say that our laws of physics are always consistent and correct.
I would somewhat disagree with laws of physics always being consistent. I say this only because I don't place faith in our laws being completely correct, though.
Our understanding is that gravity does not slow light down. No guarantees about that until we understand how gravity works. Based on our current understanding, gravity does not slow light, but it does shift frequency (as you said) and change the path of light. If you think of light as only EM propogation, then it does not slow. If you think of light as a particle, then it should be possible to slow. We haven't observed this, but I don't know if there are any refined theories predicting it either way. However, while I enjoy following current theory, but I am by no means more than a novice!
Also, when considering such things as relativity and frames of reference, remember that we only really have one frame of reference. Things may not be as they appear, from our limited vantage point. There are refinements to quantum theory all the time, and that plays havoc on what is current for particle and field interaction.
No no, the GP is correct. When you're talking about the speed of light, 'c', you're talking about the speed of light in a vacuum. As mentioned, there are ways of making light take more time to travel the same distance, by passing it through various substances. Diffraction is not the only thing that happens when you shine light into something. Gravity also can have an effect on the speed of light.
The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all frames of reference.
I'd like to say that you're an asshole too, but I can't stop laughing. :)
That passage says the States decide how elections happen. It gives Congress the ability to ovveride the States by creating regulations to set the time and manner for choosing Senators, and to set the time, place, and manner of choosing Representatives. Senators had been appointed by the States, so there was no election for them. This means that they are solely saying that they can meddle with how/where/when election for Representatives occur.
:)
A later passage gives Congress the ability to set the time and date for choosing electors. This is not the actual vote, however.
It gives no power over the method of choosing electors, State elections, Presidential elections, etc. They could require voting by missile for Reps and Senators, and the States could still use paper for the Presidential elections.
Yes, I did mean "can't" before.
They could also do it the semi-mechanical way that many Northeast (and probably others) use. You have a machine with levers. You set the levers the way that you want, and the machine doesn't allow an incorrect number of choices. When you're done, you pull a handle. This creates a paper card that has marked out your choices. You put your card into a box, after checking it to make sure it was created correctly. The machine tallies the numbers of votes, with the paper cards serving as auditing backup.
If you wanted to be sure, you would release your machine tallies when voting ends, and then always perform a manual recount of the cards, to verify the machine accuracy.
You can have a Federally standardized voting procedure because the method of voting is constitutionally left up to the States. We had to get an amendment to insure than every 18 year old could vote, but nothing stops a state from allowing a 14 year old to vote; this is because States control the election process. If you didn't like this, it could be changed corruptly through using the threat of revocation of Federal monies, or properly, by a constitional amendment.
The sed lines are removing the "updated" string from each processed line. Sort is grouping lines, uniq is removing all duplicated entries.
:) There are much better places to start, mind you.
sed -e(expression) 's(search)/(U|updated)(search regex)/(empty replacement text)/g(global)'
So:
1
2
1 (Updated)
1 (updated)
2 (Updated)
Becomes: (through sed)
1
2
1
1
2
Becomes: (through sort)
1
1
1
2
2
Would drop to simply: (through uniq)
1
2
And then "wc" counts the lines.
In this case, the GP compressed it to 747 unique Microsoft flaws, and 1050 unique unix flaws.
And yes, learn regex! It is extremely useful, and can help manipulate massive data sets easily and quickly. "man 7 regex" is a good place to start.
There are reasons for war, but they are usually not good enough reasons. In the case of Iraq, they are not definitely not good enough. Aiding a rebellion/revolution is very different from helping fight in the same. For example, the US has a history in supplying anyone willing to pay; this is acceptable. The US has a history of committing troops to foreign civil wars; this is not acceptable.
You go to war when the loss of life helps to guarantee the lives of more than you may lose. You go to war when you feel the cause is worthy of loss of life. I disagree with forcing people to fight in a war that they don't believe in. This is why I am incredibly opposed to any form of draft or conscription. There were good reasons for the US Revolution and the US Civil War, for example.
You don't go to war because you dislike a country, a leader, or a government, and you certainly don't go to war for profit. All of those things are examples of reasons that are not good enough. I am willing to fight for my countrymen and for my freedom, but I'm not willing to put my life on the line for someone in another country that isn't willing to do the same, and I'm certainly not willing to kill for that. Some people are willing, and power to them to be free to exercise that will. Likewise, power to people that object and speak out about others doing that.
In the case of the Iraqi conflict, part of that is due to terrorism, a large part is due to Hussein double-crossing the US, and another large part is for oil. I'd say that the US government is playing the humanitarian, but seeking profit and revenge. It had justification through the UN resolution on Iraq, for what that's worth, so it was no illegal action, as many purport. I'd hold that it is unconstitutional for the US Federal government to take the action, but it was legal under UN rules, and that's what people tend to talk about.
There is a lot of corruption, but look for it in the places that it actually lies. If you look at the history the Western world has with Iraq, and with the history that the US has there, in particular, you find all that you need.
The quote that I found while searching says:
;-)
1534 Jul 24, Jacques Cartier landed in Canada and claimed it for France. Jacques Cartier while probing for a northern route to Asia visited Labrador and said: "Fit only for wild beasts... This must be the land God gave to Cain." [see May 10]
(NG, V184, No. 4, 10/1993, p. 4)(MC, 7/24/02)
1534 May 10, Jacques Cartier reached Newfoundland.
(CFA, '96, p.46)
(Credit to http://timelines.ws/)
And yes, there definitely could be a few jokes about poutain, but you'd have to know some French to really get it.
2a) No, and it probably isn't next year, either. Most people that I have conversations with about such things either believe that it's for the best or don't believe me at all. Unless people stop believing things just because Congress said so, or the TV/newspaper/etc said so (or we replace those with something trustworthy), this attitude is not likely to change. People seem to be too lazy to actually verify what they hear.
;-)
2b) Yes, I can remember having contempt for France for as long as I knew their history. My humor about France hasn't changed in at least 20 years (coincidentally, the period over which I've made jokes at France's expense). My opinion of France went down over Iraq II, but not because they opposed it. It was because of the backroom deals that they were brokering with Iraq. I also oppose the US meddling in foreign governments. If it weren't for the treaties and such that France had agreed to, I wouldn't care that they were making deals with Iraq.
3) You forgot a significant portion of Africa from the list of places with reason to hate France.
1/4/5) I agree! New France jokes would be very amusing.
Seriously, Slashdot is indicitive of the follow-the-leader mentality just as much as Fark, Digg, Kuroshin, or most anywhere else. People like to fit in, they like being modded up, and they're often somewhat afraid of standing out for voicing a different opinion.
BTW - GP was a joke; lighten up!
The WinTV-USB2 has some support for Linux, provided by a hack that uses the Windows drivers and a download of the firmware. It doesn't work with a lot of software, unfortunately. They also *can* have enough lag to make it impossible to play video games through them, though not everyone has that problem.