IPA is supposed to be a bitter beer, by definition. And thats exactly why many of us love it. We want a bitter beer. If you dont like a bitter bear than the IPA is not for you. go back to drinking your Bud dish water.
For me as well bitter chocolate tastes the best, really. The common milk chocolates sold taste like nothing except for sugar and milk, the taste of chocolate is barely there. Many people enjoy bitter tasting foods.
All of the earth crust floats. Mountains are higher because the rock beneath them is lighter, hotter, or thicker than elsewhere. Continental crust does not subduct because it is the result of island arc subduction related magmatism which produces metal poor rocks due to fractional melting, producing a rock that is lighter than mantle. Oceanic crust is mafic and contains more metals, is more dense, and has similar composition to the mantle, so it tends to subduct easily. Good we are covering basic geology 101 for the benefit of all here.
While they keep on adding stuff like this which is okay, it seems like they neglect security. Firefox's security is pathetic when it ought to be a top priority.
While this is great, shouldnt Firefox finally get around to doing something about having a real sandbox on Linux on par with what Google Chrome has had for years? I mean come on, Google Chrome has had this since 2013 and yet it still on Firefox's to-do, while somehow they can manage to find time for all of this other stuff. Maybe they should work on getting the sandbox first and then work on these other features after that? I think security should be the #1 priority. Firefox has added a million other things over 2 years but someone cannot find the time to get the sandbox working. This is very serious as a sandbox is necessary, and essential, with a code base as large as Firefox it has been shown that there is usually some memory error that creeps in somewhere. The sandbox makes is to that even if they can take over a process, thats as far as they can get as the rendering code does not have access to kernel surfaces for things it does not need.
Because of the lack of sandbox, Firefox remains pathetic, the worst and most insecure browser that now exists. Even IE has a sandbox now, so Firefox is even less secure than IE. Yes IE, has had its CVEs, but so has firefox, but the sandbox is essential, due to the fact that it protects you at least to some degree in that time between the bug being implemented, being found and then finally repaired.
I should add, desktop apps dont take away your ability to put your documents on a server if you want to share the data, what it does assure that the data will not be uploaded in any way unless you specifically authorize it, otherwise its only stored locally. If someone wants to put some data on a server, they can take the data produced by a desktop application and use their own server or another service to put the file online. This allows people to only upload data that they want to share, rather than upload everything and preserves all of the aformentioned rights of using desktop programs on a computer they own and control, of not having to store data online that does not need to be stored online and having complete control over their software and being able to modify it as they see fit, if they use an open source program like LibreOffice.
Richard Stallman covered this subject in detail, it is important reading: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
I am surprised this would even be asked here. The fact is, if you care about security and privacy, you dont want to use anything other than desktop apps. You want to avoid anything such as Google Docs for your normal letter writing and so on. One area of confusion is that people have problems drawing a distinction between which is where you share things that you want other people to see, versus a tax spreadsheet that no one else should see. With the social networking the material is sort of not private anyway and you want to share it so little is lost by putting it on a server farm, and it is necessary that it be shared with others so the server farm facilitates the communications.
With a desktop application where you are working on tax spreadsheets or working on other things that will not be shared, there is no need to put it on a server some place else, so why do it? In so doing you give up a huge amount of potential privacy, increasing the technical possibilities of a possible access of the material on the server farm by other entities.
Using this cloud stuff you lose control of your data. The cloud provider could pull the plug on the service at any time (and it happens, look at Google Code and Geocities and the vast store of information that was lost with that).
Using the cloud for office apps is basically not necessary for what you are doing, since when you are writing a document for local use, or working on spreadsheet data, there is no technical need to use a cloud service to do this, and by doing so you endanger privacy and your control over the data.
Whats really going on here is an attempt for large corporations to nickle and dime you and monetize you, perhaps by the minute, to use their software, while if you use an open source desktop app, you have unlimited use of the software for as long as you need at no charge.
Secondly, open source is all about users being able to control, modify, run and expeiriment with the code they use, and being able to read it. Using apps on a server farm takes away the users control over the software they use, as it does with taking away users control over their data.
Many of the concerns about the safety of fracking relate to the drill shaft and riser pipe that comes up from the pay dirt, through the groundwater supplies, to the surface. When the riser pipe is installed, a drill shaft is made and the pipe is inserted into it, there is a space between the pipe and the wall of the drill shaft that is supposed to be filled in with cement. If the cement flow is blocked for whatever reason, the annular space may not be filled in, you will end up with an open channel that could run for thousands of feet between the pay dirt and the groundwater supply. Since you cant really see if the cemented went okay, its many thousands of feet underground, its hard to tell if this is happening. When the high pressure drilling fluids are injected, they would easily flow right up that channel into the groundwater supply. They say in the propoganda that there is many thousands of feet of impermeable rock between the pay dirt layer and the groundwater, but this doesnt mean much as you just drilled a hole through it all.
This chemical has been shown to cause liver cancer in animals and to be a probable human carcinogen. It also can cuase reproductive issues along with many other problems
Such a deal would be bad for consumers, for certain. I suspect that AT&T may be trying to compete with cable companies by offering a TV service of its own through the satellite which would then bundle with AT&Ts landline services. Perhaps protections will be put in place to not have an adverse anticompetitive impact on Dish TV, and other landline providers.
Now I am speaking from a technical perspective here and idealistically rather than how the chips would fall considering many of the current tendancies of the business players involved, frm a technical perspective alone the satellite distribution being used for national channels and the landlines being used for internet and local channels could free up a large amount of bandwidth on landline system for use by the Internet access by removing the channels from landline and using satellite for that. On the other hand, having the 10 or so local channels on the landline and removing them from the satellite could free up more room on the satellite for more video programming. The result overall is more efficient use of the resources. Satellite is better for national mass distribution of programming while landline has strengths in distributing local channels and internet services.
Consider a coaxial system can deliver about 1 Ghz of bandwidth, much of that is used now for 6 Mhz video channels. Imagine if most the entire 1 ghz could be used for internet alone and satellite would be used for providing TV access. The increase in bandwidthe for internet services would be dramatic.
One could imagine where people could combine the satellite with landline internet service. Technically, this actually makes sense. One fact about video distribution is that its somewhat more efficient on bandwidth for consumers to record their shows on the DVR off the channels rather than stream them. When DVRing off the channels is more of a situation where everyone on the network gets the program from the same data stream, which uses a lot less bandwidth than 500 people getting the program via 500 seperate streams. Nonetheless, streaming is a big fad even though it doesnt make as much technical sense as DVRing as far as bandwidth consumption.
Many of the kids here may not realize that long before DVRs we had VCRs where you did record programs off the cable onto VHS tape, and then replay the VHS tape at a later time. It was even possible to keep a copy of the program forever. Unlike DVRs you couldnt run out of space because you could just buy more VHS tapes. And unlike streaming, even if you cancelled a service such as a premium channel, your access to the programming wouldnt disappear. In many ways due to the fact your VHS tapes could be played on any device (not locked to one DVR), had no DRM crap, and wouldnt disappear when you cancelled a service, were superior expept in picture quality. Newer is definitely not better!
The word troll is a pointless word which is misused by people who mainly want to villify those who disagree with them, and excuse for people who do not want anyone else to be able to express opinions except for the ones they approve, to censor anyone elses opinions they do not like. Thus, the marking in almost all cases is abused and has no real purpose except for censorship. Obviously, since a message board should be a place for discussion and expressing of differing views and opinions, such is contrary to the purpose of message boards to begin with, to express ones views and to debate subjects.
The fact is, expressing a view someone else disagree with is not something we should censor, and the tr*** accusation is just an excuse for censorship. As long as the poster honestly believes in what they are posting, its not a tro**, their are posting their view to express their position for the sake of the issue itself, rather than to annoy anyone. Maybe, a tr*** might be someone who posts things they do not agree with for the sole purpose to annoy. However, since it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not someone posting a message honestly believes in what they say, it is impossible to determine if a message is a tr***, or not. it is also impossible to know if someone is posting a view just because they are interested in a subject and have a view on it, rather than trying to annoy anyone.
The fact is, if someone is annoyed by something, the person responsible for being annoyed is the person who is annoyed, its all in the eye of the beholder, some people will agree with something and others will disagree, you have to allow for a difference of opinions and views. It is always the case that someone will disagree with someone else says, it does not mean that the message was posted with the sole intent to annoy, but the reader of a message may still misconstrue or assume that even though it is impossible for them to truly know that. It is okay and important for people to be able to post messages they know will annoy others, because, anything can annoy anyone, its impossible to post a view or position on anything if one has to fear annoying someone.
The tr*** thing could only apply to messages written with the sole intent to annoy, But as I said, its impossible for anyone to know if that was the sole intent, to be the sole intent, the person would have to not honestly believe in what they say, otherwise they are posting because they believe in what they say and think that its important.
That is why the marking on a message cannot be used legitimately and fairly, there is impossible for anyone to know if a message is a tr8**. Thats why, we should remove the marking from messaging and bullitin board systems. As I said before, in 100% of cases the marking is abused, it cannot be used in any proper, fair way, because it is a fundamentally flawed feature.
It would be best policy on these matters is that bullitin boards should have a rule against computer generated and mass posted advertising, but thats about it.
After looking at Mono I failed to see the point in the whole thing. Thats because it does not support the WPF. Since a large number of.NET applications are GUI, not having WPF pretty much destroys the value of Mono in allowing Windows.NET programs to run on Linux. Otherwise, there is no point in using Mono. If you have a.NET program written using WPF its not going to run on Mono. If you are writing a new program there is no reason to use Mono instead of another application language such as Ruby. Using a development environment designed by the Evil Empire does not hold special appeal over the FOSS plartforms such as Ruby. If one has to write a program that can run on both Windows and Linux i would probably be better to use Ruby or Python or such.
Why didnt Microsoft Open source the WPF. Instead, they open sourced the parts of.NET that Mono already had implementations of.
He's wrong. Its not that people shouldnt take an interest in humanities, they should. But the engineering student does not need to take thousands of dollars on expensive college courses to do it. You dont need to go to a college to read some books, watch some videos and so on that would give you every bit of information as a college course.
With the rising cost of college, we have to reduce the cost of it and make sure every dollar we are REQUIRED to spend on college is on the job critical information. There are other ways for people to get access to humanities as I mentioned, college is not the only source of this and it does not revolve around colleges.
That is an outrageous comment. Most everyday users who would be the type that would need to move to Linux for it to actually gain real growth against Windows don't even know what systemd is. Most of the squabbling over it comes from Linux insiders, who if they wanted to could simply tailor Debian to use their own init system, so if they dont like systemd, why dont they just put in their own init program after they install debian?. As far as I know, there is no reason why the distribution should not allow the user to select another init system, other than the default systemd. You could also configure systemd to start up your own init scripts and programs and start your programs from those scripts.
Furthermore most of the squabbling over systemd seems to be about the fact that some people do not like that systemd gives you more control and flexibility over the startup process. It seems as this group is opposed to anything that would extend or improve upon Linux's mechanisms that would allow for more options and control. They are opposed to being able to start a program on the NIC coming online, if that is what you need to do. systemd does not take away any functionality, it fully supports the full SysV init system, so its not as if systemd is taking away your ability to set up your init system like you always have. All of the functionality it adds is in addition to the existing functionality of previous init systems. What this means is that those who oppose systemd are only about taking away choice, control and flexibility from other users, they do not want other users to be able to utilize certain features. So these people basically want to keep Linux difficult to use, unconfigurable and inflexible. In fact, those who suffer and lose the most from the attacks on systemd are techie types who can most benefit from the kinds of control and customizability that systemd can provide in initialization and system control. I believe that many of those who oppose systemd are in fact agents of Microsoft trying to undermine Linux and attack anything that could actually make it better.
One of the concerns is that what the child says will be recorded and mined for nefarious purposes, such as using it to profile them. Another concerning thing is the concern that it could be used to manipulate them psychologically in various ways. Parents have no way of knowing what this damn thing could blurt out to their children next. Its not impossible that this thing could allow the cloud to get inside the childs head and use responses to cause psychological responses. Unlike the interaction with the child with one of their real, living peers, what is behind this doll is a massive corporation with huge analytical capabilities and the potential for an ulterior motive to try to get inside and and manipulate the users of this doll. Children are more vulnerable than adults due to the fact they are still in a period of rapid development and learning.
The purpose of NTP is to accurately set the clock. There can be many reasons for this, not just network protocols that may depend on it. It may be that some people just like having the computer clock set with close to atomic clock accuracy. It is true that network protocols should be more resiliant to unsynchoronized clocks at either end, but this does NOT negate the need for NTP, since many use it to keep the computer clock accurate to have an accurate clock and not have to constantly readjust it, for their own personal use for timekeeping, setting their watch, accuracy in timed events and so on.
Actually, not quite. Most areas at best have 2 options for high speed internet. Usually, both are bad. Its almost impossible for other companies to enter the market to provide a real competitive atmosphere by doing it better than the existing providers. So you have no real competition. This is mainly why broadband services are a natural multiopoly, the huge capital investments needed pretty much lock it up for 1 to 2 companies, any more than that and it becomes unprofitable due to the huge cost of running lines. This means that the market basically does not function effectively in this market and regulation is well justified to provide protection for the consumer. Its very similar to your water service, it wouldnt be feasible or practical for 20 different water companies to run their own pipes up and down their streets.
Removng TSYNC support would be incredibly stupid. You have no idea what your talking about. The feature is there to sandbox the browser. Given the history of security problems in nearly all C software programs, this is of critical importance. TSYNC can also be used by all other network programs in the system as well, so this is not chrome specific. Firefox needs to use this feature badly. Just backport the feature to older kernels. This is what Debian is refusing to do because they are a bunch of stubborn fools. Debian basically wants to keep their users unnecessarily in a less secure state because they dont like Google.
The feature added on the kernel side is not particularly for Chrome, it can be used by other networked applications, in fact, such use would be highly advisable. Firefox needs to use this itself, and can. Its a sandbox feature for protecting the system from a compromised process. Its debian that refused to apply the patch for older kernels. The feature should be considered a security patch as the situation with browsers, not just the browser but some plugins some users use such as Flash, has become serious enough that having a sandbox nowadays is a critical extra layer of security. You basically shouldnt be running a browser without the sandbox anyway. So backport the sandbox to older kernels and be done with it.
Its not bloatware. The feature is something that can be widely used by any networked program, it provides a security layer. Given the problems browsers have faced with security issues, its a badly needed extra layer of security. You are basically saying that protecting the system from an compromised process is bloatware. Thats nonsense. If anything, Firefox needs to play catch up to implement the sandbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, the IPA and Extra IPA are supposed to be bitter. For a less bitter beer go with a regular Ale such as Pale Ale.
IPA is supposed to be a bitter beer, by definition. And thats exactly why many of us love it. We want a bitter beer. If you dont like a bitter bear than the IPA is not for you. go back to drinking your Bud dish water.
For me as well bitter chocolate tastes the best, really. The common milk chocolates sold taste like nothing except for sugar and milk, the taste of chocolate is barely there. Many people enjoy bitter tasting foods.
All of the earth crust floats. Mountains are higher because the rock beneath them is lighter, hotter, or thicker than elsewhere. Continental crust does not subduct because it is the result of island arc subduction related magmatism which produces metal poor rocks due to fractional melting, producing a rock that is lighter than mantle. Oceanic crust is mafic and contains more metals, is more dense, and has similar composition to the mantle, so it tends to subduct easily. Good we are covering basic geology 101 for the benefit of all here.
While they keep on adding stuff like this which is okay, it seems like they neglect security. Firefox's security is pathetic when it ought to be a top priority.
While this is great, shouldnt Firefox finally get around to doing something about having a real sandbox on Linux on par with what Google Chrome has had for years? I mean come on, Google Chrome has had this since 2013 and yet it still on Firefox's to-do, while somehow they can manage to find time for all of this other stuff. Maybe they should work on getting the sandbox first and then work on these other features after that? I think security should be the #1 priority. Firefox has added a million other things over 2 years but someone cannot find the time to get the sandbox working. This is very serious as a sandbox is necessary, and essential, with a code base as large as Firefox it has been shown that there is usually some memory error that creeps in somewhere. The sandbox makes is to that even if they can take over a process, thats as far as they can get as the rendering code does not have access to kernel surfaces for things it does not need.
Because of the lack of sandbox, Firefox remains pathetic, the worst and most insecure browser that now exists. Even IE has a sandbox now, so Firefox is even less secure than IE. Yes IE, has had its CVEs, but so has firefox, but the sandbox is essential, due to the fact that it protects you at least to some degree in that time between the bug being implemented, being found and then finally repaired.
I should add, desktop apps dont take away your ability to put your documents on a server if you want to share the data, what it does assure that the data will not be uploaded in any way unless you specifically authorize it, otherwise its only stored locally. If someone wants to put some data on a server, they can take the data produced by a desktop application and use their own server or another service to put the file online. This allows people to only upload data that they want to share, rather than upload everything and preserves all of the aformentioned rights of using desktop programs on a computer they own and control, of not having to store data online that does not need to be stored online and having complete control over their software and being able to modify it as they see fit, if they use an open source program like LibreOffice.
Richard Stallman covered this subject in detail, it is important reading: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
I am surprised this would even be asked here. The fact is, if you care about security and privacy, you dont want to use anything other than desktop apps. You want to avoid anything such as Google Docs for your normal letter writing and so on. One area of confusion is that people have problems drawing a distinction between which is where you share things that you want other people to see, versus a tax spreadsheet that no one else should see. With the social networking the material is sort of not private anyway and you want to share it so little is lost by putting it on a server farm, and it is necessary that it be shared with others so the server farm facilitates the communications.
With a desktop application where you are working on tax spreadsheets or working on other things that will not be shared, there is no need to put it on a server some place else, so why do it? In so doing you give up a huge amount of potential privacy, increasing the technical possibilities of a possible access of the material on the server farm by other entities.
Using this cloud stuff you lose control of your data. The cloud provider could pull the plug on the service at any time (and it happens, look at Google Code and Geocities and the vast store of information that was lost with that).
Using the cloud for office apps is basically not necessary for what you are doing, since when you are writing a document for local use, or working on spreadsheet data, there is no technical need to use a cloud service to do this, and by doing so you endanger privacy and your control over the data.
Whats really going on here is an attempt for large corporations to nickle and dime you and monetize you, perhaps by the minute, to use their software, while if you use an open source desktop app, you have unlimited use of the software for as long as you need at no charge.
Secondly, open source is all about users being able to control, modify, run and expeiriment with the code they use, and being able to read it. Using apps on a server farm takes away the users control over the software they use, as it does with taking away users control over their data.
Avoid Software as a Service like the plague.
Many of the concerns about the safety of fracking relate to the drill shaft and riser pipe that comes up from the pay dirt, through the groundwater supplies, to the surface. When the riser pipe is installed, a drill shaft is made and the pipe is inserted into it, there is a space between the pipe and the wall of the drill shaft that is supposed to be filled in with cement. If the cement flow is blocked for whatever reason, the annular space may not be filled in, you will end up with an open channel that could run for thousands of feet between the pay dirt and the groundwater supply. Since you cant really see if the cemented went okay, its many thousands of feet underground, its hard to tell if this is happening. When the high pressure drilling fluids are injected, they would easily flow right up that channel into the groundwater supply. They say in the propoganda that there is many thousands of feet of impermeable rock between the pay dirt layer and the groundwater, but this doesnt mean much as you just drilled a hole through it all.
They are pumping this stuff by the thousands of gallons into the ground. But, no, it must be something other than fracking, anything but fracking.
Even though its used by cleaners, doesnt mean its not toxic, many things are toxic which are found in consumer applications, even lethal.
This chemical has been shown to cause liver cancer in animals and to be a probable human carcinogen. It also can cuase reproductive issues along with many other problems
Such a deal would be bad for consumers, for certain. I suspect that AT&T may be trying to compete with cable companies by offering a TV service of its own through the satellite which would then bundle with AT&Ts landline services. Perhaps protections will be put in place to not have an adverse anticompetitive impact on Dish TV, and other landline providers.
Now I am speaking from a technical perspective here and idealistically rather than how the chips would fall considering many of the current tendancies of the business players involved, frm a technical perspective alone the satellite distribution being used for national channels and the landlines being used for internet and local channels could free up a large amount of bandwidth on landline system for use by the Internet access by removing the channels from landline and using satellite for that. On the other hand, having the 10 or so local channels on the landline and removing them from the satellite could free up more room on the satellite for more video programming. The result overall is more efficient use of the resources. Satellite is better for national mass distribution of programming while landline has strengths in distributing local channels and internet services.
Consider a coaxial system can deliver about 1 Ghz of bandwidth, much of that is used now for 6 Mhz video channels. Imagine if most the entire 1 ghz could be used for internet alone and satellite would be used for providing TV access. The increase in bandwidthe for internet services would be dramatic.
One could imagine where people could combine the satellite with landline internet service. Technically, this actually makes sense. One fact about video distribution is that its somewhat more efficient on bandwidth for consumers to record their shows on the DVR off the channels rather than stream them. When DVRing off the channels is more of a situation where everyone on the network gets the program from the same data stream, which uses a lot less bandwidth than 500 people getting the program via 500 seperate streams. Nonetheless, streaming is a big fad even though it doesnt make as much technical sense as DVRing as far as bandwidth consumption.
Many of the kids here may not realize that long before DVRs we had VCRs where you did record programs off the cable onto VHS tape, and then replay the VHS tape at a later time. It was even possible to keep a copy of the program forever. Unlike DVRs you couldnt run out of space because you could just buy more VHS tapes. And unlike streaming, even if you cancelled a service such as a premium channel, your access to the programming wouldnt disappear. In many ways due to the fact your VHS tapes could be played on any device (not locked to one DVR), had no DRM crap, and wouldnt disappear when you cancelled a service, were superior expept in picture quality. Newer is definitely not better!
Did this have to do with In-Vitro Fertilization?
The word troll is a pointless word which is misused by people who mainly want to villify those who disagree with them, and excuse for people who do not want anyone else to be able to express opinions except for the ones they approve, to censor anyone elses opinions they do not like. Thus, the marking in almost all cases is abused and has no real purpose except for censorship. Obviously, since a message board should be a place for discussion and expressing of differing views and opinions, such is contrary to the purpose of message boards to begin with, to express ones views and to debate subjects.
The fact is, expressing a view someone else disagree with is not something we should censor, and the tr*** accusation is just an excuse for censorship. As long as the poster honestly believes in what they are posting, its not a tro**, their are posting their view to express their position for the sake of the issue itself, rather than to annoy anyone. Maybe, a tr*** might be someone who posts things they do not agree with for the sole purpose to annoy. However, since it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not someone posting a message honestly believes in what they say, it is impossible to determine if a message is a tr***, or not. it is also impossible to know if someone is posting a view just because they are interested in a subject and have a view on it, rather than trying to annoy anyone.
The fact is, if someone is annoyed by something, the person responsible for being annoyed is the person who is annoyed, its all in the eye of the beholder, some people will agree with something and others will disagree, you have to allow for a difference of opinions and views. It is always the case that someone will disagree with someone else says, it does not mean that the message was posted with the sole intent to annoy, but the reader of a message may still misconstrue or assume that even though it is impossible for them to truly know that. It is okay and important for people to be able to post messages they know will annoy others, because, anything can annoy anyone, its impossible to post a view or position on anything if one has to fear annoying someone.
The tr*** thing could only apply to messages written with the sole intent to annoy, But as I said, its impossible for anyone to know if that was the sole intent, to be the sole intent, the person would have to not honestly believe in what they say, otherwise they are posting because they believe in what they say and think that its important.
That is why the marking on a message cannot be used legitimately and fairly, there is impossible for anyone to know if a message is a tr8**. Thats why, we should remove the marking from messaging and bullitin board systems. As I said before, in 100% of cases the marking is abused, it cannot be used in any proper, fair way, because it is a fundamentally flawed feature.
It would be best policy on these matters is that bullitin boards should have a rule against computer generated and mass posted advertising, but thats about it.
The eternal question: Does it run Linux?
After looking at Mono I failed to see the point in the whole thing. Thats because it does not support the WPF. Since a large number of .NET applications are GUI, not having WPF pretty much destroys the value of Mono in allowing Windows .NET programs to run on Linux. Otherwise, there is no point in using Mono. If you have a .NET program written using WPF its not going to run on Mono. If you are writing a new program there is no reason to use Mono instead of another application language such as Ruby. Using a development environment designed by the Evil Empire does not hold special appeal over the FOSS plartforms such as Ruby. If one has to write a program that can run on both Windows and Linux i would probably be better to use Ruby or Python or such.
Why didnt Microsoft Open source the WPF. Instead, they open sourced the parts of .NET that Mono already had implementations of.
He's wrong. Its not that people shouldnt take an interest in humanities, they should. But the engineering student does not need to take thousands of dollars on expensive college courses to do it. You dont need to go to a college to read some books, watch some videos and so on that would give you every bit of information as a college course.
With the rising cost of college, we have to reduce the cost of it and make sure every dollar we are REQUIRED to spend on college is on the job critical information. There are other ways for people to get access to humanities as I mentioned, college is not the only source of this and it does not revolve around colleges.
Okay. What registrar do you recommend using?
That is an outrageous comment. Most everyday users who would be the type that would need to move to Linux for it to actually gain real growth against Windows don't even know what systemd is. Most of the squabbling over it comes from Linux insiders, who if they wanted to could simply tailor Debian to use their own init system, so if they dont like systemd, why dont they just put in their own init program after they install debian?. As far as I know, there is no reason why the distribution should not allow the user to select another init system, other than the default systemd. You could also configure systemd to start up your own init scripts and programs and start your programs from those scripts.
Furthermore most of the squabbling over systemd seems to be about the fact that some people do not like that systemd gives you more control and flexibility over the startup process. It seems as this group is opposed to anything that would extend or improve upon Linux's mechanisms that would allow for more options and control. They are opposed to being able to start a program on the NIC coming online, if that is what you need to do. systemd does not take away any functionality, it fully supports the full SysV init system, so its not as if systemd is taking away your ability to set up your init system like you always have. All of the functionality it adds is in addition to the existing functionality of previous init systems. What this means is that those who oppose systemd are only about taking away choice, control and flexibility from other users, they do not want other users to be able to utilize certain features. So these people basically want to keep Linux difficult to use, unconfigurable and inflexible. In fact, those who suffer and lose the most from the attacks on systemd are techie types who can most benefit from the kinds of control and customizability that systemd can provide in initialization and system control. I believe that many of those who oppose systemd are in fact agents of Microsoft trying to undermine Linux and attack anything that could actually make it better.
One of the concerns is that what the child says will be recorded and mined for nefarious purposes, such as using it to profile them. Another concerning thing is the concern that it could be used to manipulate them psychologically in various ways. Parents have no way of knowing what this damn thing could blurt out to their children next. Its not impossible that this thing could allow the cloud to get inside the childs head and use responses to cause psychological responses. Unlike the interaction with the child with one of their real, living peers, what is behind this doll is a massive corporation with huge analytical capabilities and the potential for an ulterior motive to try to get inside and and manipulate the users of this doll. Children are more vulnerable than adults due to the fact they are still in a period of rapid development and learning.
The purpose of NTP is to accurately set the clock. There can be many reasons for this, not just network protocols that may depend on it. It may be that some people just like having the computer clock set with close to atomic clock accuracy. It is true that network protocols should be more resiliant to unsynchoronized clocks at either end, but this does NOT negate the need for NTP, since many use it to keep the computer clock accurate to have an accurate clock and not have to constantly readjust it, for their own personal use for timekeeping, setting their watch, accuracy in timed events and so on.
Actually, not quite. Most areas at best have 2 options for high speed internet. Usually, both are bad. Its almost impossible for other companies to enter the market to provide a real competitive atmosphere by doing it better than the existing providers. So you have no real competition. This is mainly why broadband services are a natural multiopoly, the huge capital investments needed pretty much lock it up for 1 to 2 companies, any more than that and it becomes unprofitable due to the huge cost of running lines. This means that the market basically does not function effectively in this market and regulation is well justified to provide protection for the consumer. Its very similar to your water service, it wouldnt be feasible or practical for 20 different water companies to run their own pipes up and down their streets.
Removng TSYNC support would be incredibly stupid. You have no idea what your talking about. The feature is there to sandbox the browser. Given the history of security problems in nearly all C software programs, this is of critical importance. TSYNC can also be used by all other network programs in the system as well, so this is not chrome specific. Firefox needs to use this feature badly. Just backport the feature to older kernels. This is what Debian is refusing to do because they are a bunch of stubborn fools. Debian basically wants to keep their users unnecessarily in a less secure state because they dont like Google.
The feature added on the kernel side is not particularly for Chrome, it can be used by other networked applications, in fact, such use would be highly advisable. Firefox needs to use this itself, and can. Its a sandbox feature for protecting the system from a compromised process. Its debian that refused to apply the patch for older kernels. The feature should be considered a security patch as the situation with browsers, not just the browser but some plugins some users use such as Flash, has become serious enough that having a sandbox nowadays is a critical extra layer of security. You basically shouldnt be running a browser without the sandbox anyway. So backport the sandbox to older kernels and be done with it.
Its not bloatware. The feature is something that can be widely used by any networked program, it provides a security layer. Given the problems browsers have faced with security issues, its a badly needed extra layer of security. You are basically saying that protecting the system from an compromised process is bloatware. Thats nonsense. If anything, Firefox needs to play catch up to implement the sandbox.
They are not specific to chrome browsers. Firefox can use these too.