Yeah, but it's dead, just stuck on repeat nailed to its perch. As is the old "user interface hall of shame" - dead but archived in various places.
And yet every damned thing they said about UI design is still correct and relevant - it's just that no one actually gives a s**t anymore. Success in UI is now measured by how long you can keep users on your site / in your app, not how fast or how accurately users can actually get stuff done. Or how many ads you can show per user action.
Eventually the decline in UI will render the user irrelevant - when computers start doing things for the user it won't be because computers are smarter, it'll be because even a dumb computer can do a better job than the user through-the-crap-interface. Then we can all climb back into the trees and watch the computers screw up the planet.
Fundamental problem is that to do this best you need a product that is either: (a) too complicated or too badly documented to install/configure/use without help or (b) too broken for anyone to dare use it without a support contract and SLA
Example: Q. I've wasted hours trying to get the community edition working because of lousy docs, anyone want to work together on producing some better ones? A. This would be a waste of (even more) time, because the paid edition already has excellent docs, don't waste your time, just pay
The moral problem that is still here is that your revenue stream depends on, often knowingly and deliberately, producing crapware (whether it's the docs or product or whatever). In contrast, producing excellent well-documented software that is easy for anyone to install configure and use gets you zero revenue.
You're right, BUT, I think it is your career that has evolved, you've become a consultant. Not a bad thing, bill the hours and any code (or not - end product may be advice to buy X or configure Y to do Z) is a side effect. You may also be able to release code/solutions for free, unsupported, off the back of paid work - many customers don't care as long as they get their solution and (non-exclusive) rights to any custom code in it. Exclusive rights cost more - because you can't use the knowledge gained or the code for another customer - most people don't want to pay for it.
However, you tend to get to this point by gaining experience in various jobs and building a reputation over years. The submitter sounds like someone starting out, probably without much of a clue. You can't go straight to freelance consultant at E70/hr from there.
The real answer is (a) get a job (most software dev/IT is still custom/internal code not sold proprietary code) and (b) do FOSS dev as a hobby. When you get enough reputation from (a) or (b) (preferably both), you can move on to your become-a-freelance-consultant solution.
You don't own the software. Worse, you agree the provider/manufacturer of the device, can change the software at any time.
Need to distinguish carrier-lockin from manufacturer lock-in - they are different.
If it is a phone with a "Carriers adapted custom versions of Android" then you don't actually own the _device_ either - you are renting it until it is paid off on contract and many people never even do that because they get a carrier-provided "upgrade" and carry on renting. If you _buy_ your phones sim-free _then_ you _own_ the device, and guess what - no carrier-special garbage on it, no carrier lock-in, no carrier-special app stores.
Manufacturer lock-in is a different problem, still a problem but there are multiple mfrs to choose from and at least buying sim-free you can be reasonably sure you are getting the same phone as in the reviews (where the mfr has some incentive to show good performance) rather than a carrier-crippled mess.
The problem with carrier lock-in is that most people are too dumb, too disorganised with money (note, not too poor - renting costs more) or simply too seduced by shiny-stuff they can't really afford (upgrades...) to escape the carrier phone rental model. The same people are also typically tied into phone contracts, paying way too much for their mobile minutes/data and unable to switch carriers or change contract to suit life changes - this is not a coincidence...
Me, I am happily running the family phones on sim-only 30-day contracts at less than £10 a month, most of the phones are over 3yrs old and still doing as good as they did when new and doing what the users need.
And here's the problem, the US can, as you point out, force a company that does business in the US to either hand over the data, or cease doing business in the US. But that's only the start of it. A precedent like that would trigger what is effectively a trade war, with other countries making laws [...]
In fact the "other countries" have already made laws, in this case the EU has privacy and data protection laws which mean MS cannot hand over the data without being in breach.
What is seemingly obviously required is international agreement so that the US can request the data from the relevant local jurisdiction who will be able to get it under the relevant local laws. Funnily enough, such an agreements (mutual legal assistance treaty) also already exist, and the EU laws which prevent MS handing it over also allow for access by local law enforcement subject to local laws.
That is the real story, the US wants to get the data by the back door because it can't be arsed to do the job properly and use MLAT to (effectively) get a court order in the EU / Ireland. You can take your pick as to _why_ they want to do it this way from e.g.:
a) the US is too lazy or incompetent to seek a foreign court order b) the US doesn't have evidence sufficient to convince a foreign court that an order would be required (add in your own take on how it managed to convince a US court...) c) the US believes on principle that it has jurisdiction everywhere so it shouldn't have to go to a foreign court, despite having signed treaties to facilitate exactly that
Um, you know MS had exactly this sort of technology on Windows back in the early 90s right? When Windows NT ran on DEC Alphas as well?
MS arguably did it better - they didn't need to emulate the OS because they could recompile it for Alpha (as they do now for ARM). Win NT has always been a portable OS. Apple only had to emulate OS level stuff because they wrote hardware-specific stuff into the OS in the first place.
The best example of how emulation works w/ Windows can be seen w/ Windows NT on RISC, such as the Alpha or the MIPS. DEC had fx!32, which was supposed to emulate and dynamically translate software, making things faster every time they were run. But emulation just sapped the legendary performance of the Alpha. Had Microsoft seriously supported Windows NT on RISC in the 90s, they'd have had not just an OS as portable as Linux or NetBSD, but also a 64 bit OS long before x64 came along.
fx!32 didn't just dynamically translate, it also cached bits of native code translations for subsequent runs. We had some alphas on demo at the time and they were beautiful machines, didn't notice much, if any, performance hit from fx!32 - in fact I think we stopped bothering to recompile our applications and just ran the x86 versions because there was no benefit in it.
The real problem was that Alpha (sadly) failed as a platform. The issue has never been that MS doesn't have a portable OS, the issue has always been that they are on by far the most popular hardware platform already, releasing and supporting a port costs (big) money and for what? The landscape is now changed, Intel have ditched their low power ARM competitor (Atom), so ARM is now king in low power with no other contenders, there is incentive to port.
In fact if you look at the previous attempt (windows RT) and compare with Intel releases, it looks a lot like Windows RT's purpose was to kick Intel into delivering better performance on Atom (they did, and RT promptly got shelved).
There is no connection _if_ you use separate mail and calendar services, and you don't connect them.
There is no connection required unless you want to do things like, oh, send meeting invites or update calendars based on invite responses... say. Obviously if you only ever meet yourself, that's not a problem.
If you want to do that, then you need to connect your mail and calendar services with, say, an iMIP service/connector - you know, the standard specifically for connecting (non-MS) mail and calendar services. Exchange just provides a mail and calendar service that is pre-connected without installing and configuring a connector, Outlook provides a client that shows both. Interestingly if you don't use Outlook, the built-in Windows email and calendar apps are separate - or rather they appear so, but you can't send meeting invites from Calendar until you configure an account in Mail...
> There is the third possibility in this case: it is homeopathy, intended to be diluted, with a manufacturing defect.
If there is any active ingredient in it, it is not homeopathy, it is drugs. The FDA can then shut them down as a drugs manufacturer making stuff that has not gone through testing and approval. Homeopathy doesn't need testing and approval because there is no active ingredient in it, drugs do, because there is.
Manufacturing defect? - Homeopathy's manufacturing process is defective by design, the entire point is to remove anything that could possibly have any effect.
It is a grandfathered legality from the days before the FDA. Homeopathic "drugs" have not been through clinical trials or been shown to be efficacious. They are based on a principle that somehow if you have a substance you can dilute it until perhaps only a couple of MOLECULES in your liquid will somehow cure your problem.
The FDA should shut down this sham of a company once and for all.
Can't have it both ways - if the stuff is diluted so much that there is nothing there, how the f**k can it be dangerous and need to be recalled? The reason the FDA can't shut homeopathy down is they are selling nothing but sugar pills, any effects or side effects would be the same with a placebo.
The _only_ danger in homeopathy is people stupidly not getting proper medical treatment because they are using it - will you can't regulate away every form of stupid. Note that you can, and they do, shutdown any practitioners who advise patients to not have effective medical treatment and to use snake oil instead.
There are two possibilities in this case: 1. it's _not_ homeopathy and actually has some active ingredient in it, and it's not a nice one 2. it is homeopathy and therefore it doesn't have any active ingredient in it and therefore it is _not_ dangerous (or effective)
In the UK most employees don't file tax returns, your new employer gets (part of) the P45 form from your old employer, in order to work out your tax coding for the rest of the tax year - the information on there is enough to work out your previous salary.
Now, you don't _have_ to do this way (can use P46 I think instead) - but then your tax will be wrong, which can get expensive.
I always wondered about library costs, STEM at least at the undergraduate level doesn't actually need one.
True, you can get all the research papers you need online these days, just log in with your uni id to get access. If you've ever wondered why it costs $$$ to get the same papers when you're out of university, well the STEM journal publishers give all university students free access, obviously...
Ever tried Agile development of a software library or of infrastructural systems? Stuff that needs to be thought out before publishing? Where experience counts? Where you don't have a team of 10 people dedicated to sprints of two weeks? Where produced software actually has to be maintained? In short, where you have a small shop that needs to make a difference.
Yes on all counts. At the same time.
I ran the dev team, already had experience of very early agile predecessors (DSDM), I was told to "do" agile with my team and went into it as a confirmed sceptic trying hard to keep an open mind, and f*** me it worked. Well. Really well. Several people (inc me) thought we couldn't do product development agile, couldn't do support and maintenance agile, couldn't support pre-sales agile, well we did, and it worked better than anything else we did in a whole lot of ways.
I have also since seen the same agile process (SCRUM) used so badly it drowned a project in treacle, it would have been hilarious if it wasn't for the amount of money you were watching being pissed up against a wall.
Agile is a tool, it is a better lathe, used properly it can produce things of great beauty and precision, but it is still just a better lathe - if you are trying to use it to drill a hole or cut a straight line you will still fail, if you leave the chuck key in you will still get hit in the nuts (if you're lucky) when you start it. Know your tools.
One problem is that much that is disputed is also time-sensitive, what is "fact" changes over time, sometimes because more "facts" become known, sometimes because they turn out to be false. You can try and check that something was factual _when_ it was published, but on the web publications can be trivially updated.
Lovely video on fact-checking, except that it doesn't fact-check itself, the google search shown in the video turns up loads of results that are reporting the story as news (and about an equal number reporting it as fake), the video claims a google search will not find the story, maybe it didn't when the video was made, but the video is _now_ demonstrably false itself.
At the end of the day whether you use Google, Snopes or Upworthy for fact checking, you are still trusting someone else to curate your news and therefore are subject to their biases and agendas.
Could be lots of reasons why, mostly centered on the fact that being in the EU locks you into a pro-capitalist neo-con system which constrains democratically elected nominally socialist governments to merely tinkering ineffectually round the edges of policy - look at Greece for a start.
There was actually a left-exit campaign, https://socialistworker.co.uk/... . You may never have heard of it because it got very little media attention (odd that...), but just googling for "Lexit" will find stuff, there's even a movie on youtube (it's a bit long to call it an advert, bits of it are in fact quite well done and it's a credit to its producers given the miniscule budget).
Many left wingers have always wanted to leave the EU - the late Tony Benn was once the rallying point for them. Some prominent left wingers who were historically pro-brexit did major u-turns as it became clear it might actually be a winner - not just Corbyn and McConnell at the top of the Labour party but also prominent journalists like Owen Jones. For many, I have no doubt these u-turns were suspicious. The official remain campaign reason for these damascene conversions is that "the EU protects workers' rights", and, er, that's about it, and it doesn't stand up to even cursory examination - where were the EU when Thatcher was abolishing workers' rights, why is the EU forcing countries to introduce thatcherite anti-union laws, why are the workers striking in France against a socialist government that is threatening workers' rights _because_ the EU told them too, if the EU protects? Try http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/ for more.
I am Not (normally) a lefty, but I can see how a lefty would have voted out - there was precious little in the official remain campaign for them, that was all based on how big international business, bankers and London would be much better off if we stayed in, with the usual implication that some of that would "trickle down" to the plebs, just as it failed to do before. I think a lot of left-leaning voters just didn't buy it, I don't think Leave _won_ the vote (both left wing and in general) I think Remain lost it - with one of the most patronising arrogant and misleading campaigns I've ever seen (at that point, obviously there's the Trump and Clinton campaigns since...).
It used to have single instance storage but doesn't anymore, in 2007 it was dropped except for attachments, 2010 got rid of it entirely. Allegedly they tuned the IO of the DB engine and reduced it by more than half overall, but SIS was one of the casualties of that (you got much reduced IO at a cost of more storage space required - pretty reasonable tradeoff with storage volume getting cheaper).
However I don't think they will be using an email server to do the work. Possibly an EDRM, which as GP says usually have dedupe built in, or dedicated analysis tools.
Threading is also key - most email tools default to including quoted original text in each reply (in various ways, top posting seems most common now). That means most text in most emails is text you already have in another email, you either only need to review the new text in each email (vastly reducing the total text volume) or you only need to review the last email in the thread (vastly reducing the number of emails). This is where it all gets trickier and the tools will vary, end result is the same though, much less to analyse than first numbers suggest.
I thought the GPL (v2 at least) was explicitly not a usage license, but a distribution one.
And GPLv3 also, although arguably less clearly:
> You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions
I'd think if you used the GPL code and linked to it, but never distributed the GPL library it wouldn't be able to kick in.
I believe that installers that download from third parties are designed to explicitly get around this even.
Correct, BUT the FSF regards the "designed to explicitly get around this" (or "user does the link") bit as contributory infringement / subterfuge. AFAIK that remains a theory that has never been tested in court, nevertheless, if I were going to do that I would want to be as non-explicit about it as possible. Of course, building separate install packages (+ dependency system) for common libraries so users only have to download what they haven't already got is designed to do just that - not to end run around the GPL...
You're conflating two issues - copyright over the API, which has been widely presumed not to exist until recently, and copyright over the library the API provides access to.
You're forgetting that in the case of dynamically linked libraries and the GPL, the two issues become the same thing. An executable using dynamic linking contains no code from a linked library to make it a derived work other than the API (and in the case of discoverable interfaces not even that - MS OLE for instance), and it may link with _any_ library that provides the same API. The only point at which a derived work is arguably created is at runtime, under the control of the user, at which point the GPL explicitly disclaims all control or restriction.
Any claim (IMO) that the GPL restricts dynamically linked libraries essentially reduces to an API copyright claim.
Example: a patch (not an executable or a source distribution, a patch) that simply modified a few function calls in an open source (but not GPL program) to give said program the _option_ of linking to a GPL library was held by rms/FSF to be a GPL violation. No executable was ever distributed, no source distribution included GPL code, just the function names and calling conventions that happened to be used in a GPL library - what is that if not the API?
I can't think of any instances offhand where an open source project has objected to anyone re-implementing a library by cloning the API. They have however very often objected to closed-source projects actually linking/including their library. Basically - clone the API if you like, but if you use any of the actual code, either by inking or cut-n-paste, then you'd better adhere to the license.
Use the same function names and calling conventions as a GPL library in your code and get told your code is must be under the GPL as a result. Actually cloning the library can get you round that by allowing you to claim that there are multiple implementations of the same API so the GPL one cannot therefore claim sole copyright on the API, even if some implementations are so dysfunctional no sane person would use them. Of course "getting round" the GPL attracts objections from some quarters...
[Aside: Open-source clones-of / replacements-for GPL programs have also attracted objections simply on the basis that one undermines the GPL-world by replicating bits of it outside the GPL - see rms on clang / LLVM vs gcc, for instance.]
All this was discussed to death (notably on gnu.misc.discuss) some time last century, and for all I know is still discussed there today - I gave up following it long ago, concluding that the GPL basically works for what it was designed for, i.e. statically-linked C executables on unix. Outside of that it always breaks, sometimes in subtle and interesting ways.
Science fiction explicitly includes some plausible technology not in existence at the time of writing and not known by the author to be impossible; and that technology is necessary to some aspect of the plot. (Alternately, the story may take place under substantially different physical conditions [an alien planet] and those conditions are relevant to the plot.) (A rarer alternative to this posits the absence of a present technology and plays with the consequences of that absence.)
This is made clearer by considering stories set far in the future. The characters don't actually exist, but that by itself doesn't make those stories science fiction.
Fantasy has elements known to be impossible within the context of current knowledge. Magic and the power of wishing are fantasy.
So who was it who said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - a SciFi author or a Fantasy author ?
Which genre is, just for one example, Dr Who - the technology central to the plot being known to be impossible within the context of current knowledge?
Did you mean Iain Banks the great writer who made the Time's list of top 50 British post-war writers ( http://www.goodreads.com/topic... ) or Iain _M_ Banks the SciFi writer who never got acknowledged outside of SciFi awards?
[ Yes I do know. Proves the article's point really - best way for great SciFi writers to get recognised seems to be to write "mainstream" fiction under another name... ]
My guess is because CDDL is _not_ GPL compatible - at least according to the FSF (it is the reason FSF say that ZFS on Linux is a GPL violation) - and the risk that brings.
For a distribution, it is a lot of work to shift over to a new init system and a lot of work (which hasn't happened) to maintain other init system options, or to shift back. You can't run without an init, but you can switch to a different filesystem relatively easily, hence the adverse impact with a CDDL init is higher than with ZFS.
Plus RedHat probably said "we like SMF too, we're going to write a new and better version of it" - I don't think there is any secret about systemd being inspired by SMF and launchd (Apple). Now, whether it is better, or might be better when finished, is a matter of opinion, and Pottering's opinion may differ from everyone elses...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but it's dead, just stuck on repeat nailed to its perch.
As is the old "user interface hall of shame" - dead but archived in various places.
And yet every damned thing they said about UI design is still correct and relevant - it's just that no one actually gives a s**t anymore. Success in UI is now measured by how long you can keep users on your site / in your app, not how fast or how accurately users can actually get stuff done. Or how many ads you can show per user action.
Eventually the decline in UI will render the user irrelevant - when computers start doing things for the user it won't be because computers are smarter, it'll be because even a dumb computer can do a better job than the user through-the-crap-interface. Then we can all climb back into the trees and watch the computers screw up the planet.
Fundamental problem is that to do this best you need a product that is either:
(a) too complicated or too badly documented to install/configure/use without help
or
(b) too broken for anyone to dare use it without a support contract and SLA
Example:
Q. I've wasted hours trying to get the community edition working because of lousy docs, anyone want to work together on producing some better ones?
A. This would be a waste of (even more) time, because the paid edition already has excellent docs, don't waste your time, just pay
The moral problem that is still here is that your revenue stream depends on, often knowingly and deliberately, producing crapware (whether it's the docs or product or whatever). In contrast, producing excellent well-documented software that is easy for anyone to install configure and use gets you zero revenue.
You're right, BUT, I think it is your career that has evolved, you've become a consultant. Not a bad thing, bill the hours and any code (or not - end product may be advice to buy X or configure Y to do Z) is a side effect. You may also be able to release code/solutions for free, unsupported, off the back of paid work - many customers don't care as long as they get their solution and (non-exclusive) rights to any custom code in it. Exclusive rights cost more - because you can't use the knowledge gained or the code for another customer - most people don't want to pay for it.
However, you tend to get to this point by gaining experience in various jobs and building a reputation over years. The submitter sounds like someone starting out, probably without much of a clue. You can't go straight to freelance consultant at E70/hr from there.
The real answer is (a) get a job (most software dev/IT is still custom/internal code not sold proprietary code) and (b) do FOSS dev as a hobby. When you get enough reputation from (a) or (b) (preferably both), you can move on to your become-a-freelance-consultant solution.
You don't own the software. Worse, you agree the provider/manufacturer of the device, can change the software at any time.
Need to distinguish carrier-lockin from manufacturer lock-in - they are different.
If it is a phone with a "Carriers adapted custom versions of Android" then you don't actually own the _device_ either - you are renting it until it is paid off on contract and many people never even do that because they get a carrier-provided "upgrade" and carry on renting. If you _buy_ your phones sim-free _then_ you _own_ the device, and guess what - no carrier-special garbage on it, no carrier lock-in, no carrier-special app stores.
Manufacturer lock-in is a different problem, still a problem but there are multiple mfrs to choose from and at least buying sim-free you can be reasonably sure you are getting the same phone as in the reviews (where the mfr has some incentive to show good performance) rather than a carrier-crippled mess.
The problem with carrier lock-in is that most people are too dumb, too disorganised with money (note, not too poor - renting costs more) or simply too seduced by shiny-stuff they can't really afford (upgrades...) to escape the carrier phone rental model. The same people are also typically tied into phone contracts, paying way too much for their mobile minutes/data and unable to switch carriers or change contract to suit life changes - this is not a coincidence...
Me, I am happily running the family phones on sim-only 30-day contracts at less than £10 a month, most of the phones are over 3yrs old and still doing as good as they did when new and doing what the users need.
And here's the problem, the US can, as you point out, force a company that does business in the US to either hand over the data, or cease doing business in the US. But that's only the start of it. A precedent like that would trigger what is effectively a trade war, with other countries making laws [...]
In fact the "other countries" have already made laws, in this case the EU has privacy and data protection laws which mean MS cannot hand over the data without being in breach.
What is seemingly obviously required is international agreement so that the US can request the data from the relevant local jurisdiction who will be able to get it under the relevant local laws. Funnily enough, such an agreements (mutual legal assistance treaty) also already exist, and the EU laws which prevent MS handing it over also allow for access by local law enforcement subject to local laws.
That is the real story, the US wants to get the data by the back door because it can't be arsed to do the job properly and use MLAT to (effectively) get a court order in the EU / Ireland. You can take your pick as to _why_ they want to do it this way from e.g.:
a) the US is too lazy or incompetent to seek a foreign court order
b) the US doesn't have evidence sufficient to convince a foreign court that an order would be required (add in your own take on how it managed to convince a US court...)
c) the US believes on principle that it has jurisdiction everywhere so it shouldn't have to go to a foreign court, despite having signed treaties to facilitate exactly that
Um, Google pulled (at least pulled google news) out of Spain (which is both first world and in-EU last time I looked) for precisely this reason.
Arguing they won't do something they've already done before for the same reason, makes no sense whatsoever.
Um, you know MS had exactly this sort of technology on Windows back in the early 90s right? When Windows NT ran on DEC Alphas as well?
MS arguably did it better - they didn't need to emulate the OS because they could recompile it for Alpha (as they do now for ARM). Win NT has always been a portable OS. Apple only had to emulate OS level stuff because they wrote hardware-specific stuff into the OS in the first place.
The best example of how emulation works w/ Windows can be seen w/ Windows NT on RISC, such as the Alpha or the MIPS. DEC had fx!32, which was supposed to emulate and dynamically translate software, making things faster every time they were run. But emulation just sapped the legendary performance of the Alpha. Had Microsoft seriously supported Windows NT on RISC in the 90s, they'd have had not just an OS as portable as Linux or NetBSD, but also a 64 bit OS long before x64 came along.
fx!32 didn't just dynamically translate, it also cached bits of native code translations for subsequent runs. We had some alphas on demo at the time and they were beautiful machines, didn't notice much, if any, performance hit from fx!32 - in fact I think we stopped bothering to recompile our applications and just ran the x86 versions because there was no benefit in it.
The real problem was that Alpha (sadly) failed as a platform. The issue has never been that MS doesn't have a portable OS, the issue has always been that they are on by far the most popular hardware platform already, releasing and supporting a port costs (big) money and for what? The landscape is now changed, Intel have ditched their low power ARM competitor (Atom), so ARM is now king in low power with no other contenders, there is incentive to port.
In fact if you look at the previous attempt (windows RT) and compare with Intel releases, it looks a lot like Windows RT's purpose was to kick Intel into delivering better performance on Atom (they did, and RT promptly got shelved).
There is no connection _if_ you use separate mail and calendar services, and you don't connect them.
There is no connection required unless you want to do things like, oh, send meeting invites or update calendars based on invite responses... say. Obviously if you only ever meet yourself, that's not a problem.
If you want to do that, then you need to connect your mail and calendar services with, say, an iMIP service/connector - you know, the standard specifically for connecting (non-MS) mail and calendar services. Exchange just provides a mail and calendar service that is pre-connected without installing and configuring a connector, Outlook provides a client that shows both. Interestingly if you don't use Outlook, the built-in Windows email and calendar apps are separate - or rather they appear so, but you can't send meeting invites from Calendar until you configure an account in Mail...
> There is the third possibility in this case: it is homeopathy, intended to be diluted, with a manufacturing defect.
If there is any active ingredient in it, it is not homeopathy, it is drugs. The FDA can then shut them down as a drugs manufacturer making stuff that has not gone through testing and approval. Homeopathy doesn't need testing and approval because there is no active ingredient in it, drugs do, because there is.
Manufacturing defect? - Homeopathy's manufacturing process is defective by design, the entire point is to remove anything that could possibly have any effect.
It is a grandfathered legality from the days before the FDA. Homeopathic "drugs" have not been through clinical trials or been shown to be efficacious. They are based on a principle that somehow if you have a substance you can dilute it until perhaps only a couple of MOLECULES in your liquid will somehow cure your problem.
The FDA should shut down this sham of a company once and for all.
Can't have it both ways - if the stuff is diluted so much that there is nothing there, how the f**k can it be dangerous and need to be recalled?
The reason the FDA can't shut homeopathy down is they are selling nothing but sugar pills, any effects or side effects would be the same with a placebo.
The _only_ danger in homeopathy is people stupidly not getting proper medical treatment because they are using it - will you can't regulate away every form of stupid. Note that you can, and they do, shutdown any practitioners who advise patients to not have effective medical treatment and to use snake oil instead.
There are two possibilities in this case:
1. it's _not_ homeopathy and actually has some active ingredient in it, and it's not a nice one
2. it is homeopathy and therefore it doesn't have any active ingredient in it and therefore it is _not_ dangerous (or effective)
It _cannot_ be both homeopathic and dangerous.
In the UK most employees don't file tax returns, your new employer gets (part of) the P45 form from your old employer, in order to work out your tax coding for the rest of the tax year - the information on there is enough to work out your previous salary.
Now, you don't _have_ to do this way (can use P46 I think instead) - but then your tax will be wrong, which can get expensive.
If you think the cap is high, just look at what they charge overseas students (and yes, STEM courses are much higher)
http://www.undergraduate.study...
I always wondered about library costs, STEM at least at the undergraduate level doesn't actually need one.
True, you can get all the research papers you need online these days, just log in with your uni id to get access. If you've ever wondered why it costs $$$ to get the same papers when you're out of university, well the STEM journal publishers give all university students free access, obviously...
Ever tried Agile development of a software library or of infrastructural systems? Stuff that needs to be thought out before publishing? Where experience counts? Where you don't have a team of 10 people dedicated to sprints of two weeks? Where produced software actually has to be maintained? In short, where you have a small shop that needs to make a difference.
Yes on all counts. At the same time.
I ran the dev team, already had experience of very early agile predecessors (DSDM), I was told to "do" agile with my team and went into it as a confirmed sceptic trying hard to keep an open mind, and f*** me it worked. Well. Really well. Several people (inc me) thought we couldn't do product development agile, couldn't do support and maintenance agile, couldn't support pre-sales agile, well we did, and it worked better than anything else we did in a whole lot of ways.
I have also since seen the same agile process (SCRUM) used so badly it drowned a project in treacle, it would have been hilarious if it wasn't for the amount of money you were watching being pissed up against a wall.
Agile is a tool, it is a better lathe, used properly it can produce things of great beauty and precision, but it is still just a better lathe - if you are trying to use it to drill a hole or cut a straight line you will still fail, if you leave the chuck key in you will still get hit in the nuts (if you're lucky) when you start it. Know your tools.
One problem is that much that is disputed is also time-sensitive, what is "fact" changes over time, sometimes because more "facts" become known, sometimes because they turn out to be false. You can try and check that something was factual _when_ it was published, but on the web publications can be trivially updated.
Take this: https://www.facebook.com/thein...
Lovely video on fact-checking, except that it doesn't fact-check itself, the google search shown in the video turns up loads of results that are reporting the story as news (and about an equal number reporting it as fake), the video claims a google search will not find the story, maybe it didn't when the video was made, but the video is _now_ demonstrably false itself.
At the end of the day whether you use Google, Snopes or Upworthy for fact checking, you are still trusting someone else to curate your news and therefore are subject to their biases and agendas.
> I mean the sky is the limit when you can see the future.
I would think lack of free will was the more pressing limit...
> Who in their right mind would choose this existence!?!
Someone who didn't have a choice, because they already knew what they would do?
[haven't seen the movie, not sure if I will or not, maybe that's the point...]
The scarier thought is that by doing the right sequence of things we might be able hang the machine. Hopefully state will be preserved upon reboot.
If it's not, how would you know?
"who'd know the difference"
"I'd notice the difference!"
"no you wouldn't, you'd be programmed not to"
Could be lots of reasons why, mostly centered on the fact that being in the EU locks you into a pro-capitalist neo-con system which constrains democratically elected nominally socialist governments to merely tinkering ineffectually round the edges of policy - look at Greece for a start.
There was actually a left-exit campaign, https://socialistworker.co.uk/... . You may never have heard of it because it got very little media attention (odd that...), but just googling for "Lexit" will find stuff, there's even a movie on youtube (it's a bit long to call it an advert, bits of it are in fact quite well done and it's a credit to its producers given the miniscule budget).
Many left wingers have always wanted to leave the EU - the late Tony Benn was once the rallying point for them. Some prominent left wingers who were historically pro-brexit did major u-turns as it became clear it might actually be a winner - not just Corbyn and McConnell at the top of the Labour party but also prominent journalists like Owen Jones. For many, I have no doubt these u-turns were suspicious. The official remain campaign reason for these damascene conversions is that "the EU protects workers' rights", and, er, that's about it, and it doesn't stand up to even cursory examination - where were the EU when Thatcher was abolishing workers' rights, why is the EU forcing countries to introduce thatcherite anti-union laws, why are the workers striking in France against a socialist government that is threatening workers' rights _because_ the EU told them too, if the EU protects? Try http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/ for more.
I am Not (normally) a lefty, but I can see how a lefty would have voted out - there was precious little in the official remain campaign for them, that was all based on how big international business, bankers and London would be much better off if we stayed in, with the usual implication that some of that would "trickle down" to the plebs, just as it failed to do before. I think a lot of left-leaning voters just didn't buy it, I don't think Leave _won_ the vote (both left wing and in general) I think Remain lost it - with one of the most patronising arrogant and misleading campaigns I've ever seen (at that point, obviously there's the Trump and Clinton campaigns since...).
It used to have single instance storage but doesn't anymore, in 2007 it was dropped except for attachments, 2010 got rid of it entirely. Allegedly they tuned the IO of the DB engine and reduced it by more than half overall, but SIS was one of the casualties of that (you got much reduced IO at a cost of more storage space required - pretty reasonable tradeoff with storage volume getting cheaper).
However I don't think they will be using an email server to do the work. Possibly an EDRM, which as GP says usually have dedupe built in, or dedicated analysis tools.
Threading is also key - most email tools default to including quoted original text in each reply (in various ways, top posting seems most common now). That means most text in most emails is text you already have in another email, you either only need to review the new text in each email (vastly reducing the total text volume) or you only need to review the last email in the thread (vastly reducing the number of emails). This is where it all gets trickier and the tools will vary, end result is the same though, much less to analyse than first numbers suggest.
I thought the GPL (v2 at least) was explicitly not a usage license, but a distribution one.
And GPLv3 also, although arguably less clearly:
> You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions
I'd think if you used the GPL code and linked to it, but never distributed the GPL library it wouldn't be able to kick in.
I believe that installers that download from third parties are designed to explicitly get around this even.
Correct, BUT the FSF regards the "designed to explicitly get around this" (or "user does the link") bit as contributory infringement / subterfuge. AFAIK that remains a theory that has never been tested in court, nevertheless, if I were going to do that I would want to be as non-explicit about it as possible. Of course, building separate install packages (+ dependency system) for common libraries so users only have to download what they haven't already got is designed to do just that - not to end run around the GPL...
You're conflating two issues - copyright over the API, which has been widely presumed not to exist until recently, and copyright over the library the API provides access to.
You're forgetting that in the case of dynamically linked libraries and the GPL, the two issues become the same thing. An executable using dynamic linking contains no code from a linked library to make it a derived work other than the API (and in the case of discoverable interfaces not even that - MS OLE for instance), and it may link with _any_ library that provides the same API. The only point at which a derived work is arguably created is at runtime, under the control of the user, at which point the GPL explicitly disclaims all control or restriction.
Any claim (IMO) that the GPL restricts dynamically linked libraries essentially reduces to an API copyright claim.
Example: a patch (not an executable or a source distribution, a patch) that simply modified a few function calls in an open source (but not GPL program) to give said program the _option_ of linking to a GPL library was held by rms/FSF to be a GPL violation. No executable was ever distributed, no source distribution included GPL code, just the function names and calling conventions that happened to be used in a GPL library - what is that if not the API?
I can't think of any instances offhand where an open source project has objected to anyone re-implementing a library by cloning the API. They have however very often objected to closed-source projects actually linking/including their library. Basically - clone the API if you like, but if you use any of the actual code, either by inking or cut-n-paste, then you'd better adhere to the license.
Use the same function names and calling conventions as a GPL library in your code and get told your code is must be under the GPL as a result. Actually cloning the library can get you round that by allowing you to claim that there are multiple implementations of the same API so the GPL one cannot therefore claim sole copyright on the API, even if some implementations are so dysfunctional no sane person would use them. Of course "getting round" the GPL attracts objections from some quarters...
[Aside: Open-source clones-of / replacements-for GPL programs have also attracted objections simply on the basis that one undermines the GPL-world by replicating bits of it outside the GPL - see rms on clang / LLVM vs gcc, for instance.]
All this was discussed to death (notably on gnu.misc.discuss) some time last century, and for all I know is still discussed there today - I gave up following it long ago, concluding that the GPL basically works for what it was designed for, i.e. statically-linked C executables on unix. Outside of that it always breaks, sometimes in subtle and interesting ways.
Science fiction explicitly includes some plausible technology not in existence at the time of writing and not known by the author to be impossible; and that technology is necessary to some aspect of the plot. (Alternately, the story may take place under substantially different physical conditions [an alien planet] and those conditions are relevant to the plot.) (A rarer alternative to this posits the absence of a present technology and plays with the consequences of that absence.)
This is made clearer by considering stories set far in the future. The characters don't actually exist, but that by itself doesn't make those stories science fiction.
Fantasy has elements known to be impossible within the context of current knowledge. Magic and the power of wishing are fantasy.
So who was it who said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - a SciFi author or a Fantasy author ?
Which genre is, just for one example, Dr Who - the technology central to the plot being known to be impossible within the context of current knowledge?
No mention of Iain M. Banks.
Did you mean Iain Banks the great writer who made the Time's list of top 50 British post-war writers ( http://www.goodreads.com/topic... ) or Iain _M_ Banks the SciFi writer who never got acknowledged outside of SciFi awards?
[ Yes I do know. Proves the article's point really - best way for great SciFi writers to get recognised seems to be to write "mainstream" fiction under another name... ]
My guess is because CDDL is _not_ GPL compatible - at least according to the FSF (it is the reason FSF say that ZFS on Linux is a GPL violation) - and the risk that brings.
For a distribution, it is a lot of work to shift over to a new init system and a lot of work (which hasn't happened) to maintain other init system options, or to shift back. You can't run without an init, but you can switch to a different filesystem relatively easily, hence the adverse impact with a CDDL init is higher than with ZFS.
Plus RedHat probably said "we like SMF too, we're going to write a new and better version of it" - I don't think there is any secret about systemd being inspired by SMF and launchd (Apple). Now, whether it is better, or might be better when finished, is a matter of opinion, and Pottering's opinion may differ from everyone elses...