I think the term you are looking for is harassment, which can only be achieved if the harassee looks at the harassment.
Which is hard not to do if you're on the internet and the target of a hate campaign. Guess they should just leave the internet when the hate mob decides it's time for them to go?
Given Microsoft’s public commitment to open source, a patent war likely isn’t going to happen; that would make the company look bad at a time when it needs all the developer support it can get.
So why don't they just relicense the.NET CLR and the rest of the packages under the Apache 2 license? It lets people use things as freely as the MIT/BSD licenses as everything else and contains the patent guarantees.
Until then, anything not under Apache 2 is suspect.
Was there? The whole thing was classified at best. Keep in mind that Bush explicitly stated that he dhttp://news.slashdot.org/story/15/06/07/0313256/everyone-hates-harvard#idn't care about Osama anymore, once he got into Iraq.
why are we making video games that intimidate wider and wider ranges of people?
Given the millions playing LoL, I don't get the impression that they "intimidate" anyone. On the other hand, there are people who like to play the game AND like seeing people play it at the highest levels possible, and this is true for many games.
What coverup? Oh, the one that has to be there so the GOP can blame Obama for something. Fuck, people talk about "BDS" but "ODS" is damn near a clinical diagnosis in the reactionary population here.
Mozilla 2015: We want to continue to exist, and are currently dependent on a competitor.
(Handful of noisy) Users 2015: WAHT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING! You can't survive, you have the stay unchanging and do exactly as we want without ever bothering us even if that means you go out of business. Oh fuck it I don't want you SPYING on me, you terrible people. I'm going to use Chrome!
Man, I love your posts because of how just shy of completely unhinged they are.
, from home users all the way to admins of large Linux server farms have said loud and clear SYSTEMD IS NOT WANTED and too damned buggy and brittle
When someone can provide concrete examples of this, rather than anecdotes and argument from emotion, I'll be more willing to listen. Until then, it seems mostly knee-jerk reaction and blaming everything on the target of one's reactionary hatred than anything concrete. But then that's pretty much par for the course with systemd.
And your links are either just shy of image macros or also from sites of people whose arguements are so terrible they read:
Poettering is like Hitler or Putin.
As quoted from your 4th link, very first sentence. So unbelievably, stupidly hyperbolic they can't be taken seriously.
I don't know how many server devs I've talked to that are leaving Linux over mission critical bugs in systemd
That's because you could very well be making shit up.
one long time Linux admin I talked to was royally pissed as he had a huge Linux farm and the order just came down from the top to switch it all to Server 2K12 because of systemd
And this screams at me "I'm hairyfeet, and I'm making shit up because I can't come up with a factual, data-backed argument!"
But it's a typical hairyfeet rant. Light on reality, heavy on emotion.
We've reached the limits of the flash technology which drives both the SATA and PCIe versions of the storage device
Individual chips have an upper cap on speed, but that's why every SSD on the market accesses numerous devices in parallel. All you need to do to make an SSD go faster is add more NAND devices in parallel and a slightly faster controller to support them.
Flash is not all that fast and it quickly becomes the limiting factor on how fast you can read data out of it.
Maybe if you have no idea what you're talking about.
unlike most of the business ppl, such as Romney, Fiorina, McNerney, Welsh, Koch bros, etc, they focus on nothing but making money and have no interest in the future of America or Mankind
None of the people you quoted appear to give a damn about the future of America or Mankind, either. They simply chose a different route to more money and power for themselves - one that hurts far, far more.
That is not capitalism, but corporatism (which is the politically correct modern name for fascism).
No, "corporatism" was Mussolini's preferred phrase, over that of "fascism." It is not "fascism" by any stretch of the imagination for a company to get a loan from the government.
Since there was another option, although less palatable to Musk, he should not have received a federal bailout.
And subjected himself to the whims of the corporations that gave him money? I'm sure they totally wouldn't interfere with the way the company operated, they'd never start demanding ridiculous growth at the cost of product quality and customer service, not at all.
unlike the GM bailout, this bailout was to somebody in the 1% group to enable him to make luxury automobiles for others in the 1%.
At worst there is no difference. At best, it prevented an actually innovative company from sinking and its technology dispersing into the market, never to be heard from again while GM et. al. continued doing what they were doing.
borders/barriers are less and less effective lately against a flood of competition from people who are cheaper and better (or hungrier).
Only because those borders are as porous as can be for corporations and what they desire, for you and me they are quite well sealed. And the notion that they're "better" is illusory. Having worked for several years with one outsourcing firm, I know the crap they churn out and their utter inability to move fast enough to get the job done. If you want it done right, or at all, do it inside.
Americans I believe will have to come to grips with the possibility of a stagnant or even decreasing standard of living as the rest of the world takes what was once our position.
You mean as the oligarchs in this world take more and more of the profits and shit on everyone below them. Well, yes, we'll just come to grips with the fact that we're all being robbed by a small number of monied elite. I suspect it won't end well for them.
No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.
It's not a double standard. A business exists by virtue of the rules imposed by society, and said license comes with conditions.
The person does not come with any such rules.
You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.
Presumably we've made it clear that there are conditions one must agree to in exchange for setting up a business in this country. One is that you don't discriminate against people for certain specific reasons, particularly when those reasons cover large swaths of people. We fought this battle ~50 years ago, with the same bullshit arguments ("God says it's a sin!") and it's still no more right or sane than it was back then.
What he did do was lash out at the people pushing this law for being arbitrary, hypocritical, superstitious, bigoted, and (most importantly) wrong. It's a frequent problem with people whose religion has privilege and a marked persecution complex.
Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally? I'd rather not.
"Klansman" is not a protected class. Of course, would you know if he came in while not dressed so as to call himself out so obviously? No!
And if you knew who he was, you could refuse to sell to him individually.
You are being silly, would might change a place would be a boycott organized against a business, dropping sales even ten percent would probably wake them up.
Or whole towns could adopt similarly hateful attitudes and make it de-facto. Why the fuck are we wandering back down this path? Oh right, because Christian Love^WHate.
in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.
What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone. Businesses are already prohibited from acting in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner towards people. They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.
Well, religion is bullshit, by and large, which is why laws like this are terrible. You have the First Amendment, you don't need to have your superstition put on a privileged pedestal.
They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.
They already have that freedom. What businesses don't have the freedom to do is to treat people differently on an arbitrary basis, and the government of Indiana is trying to change it so people can, via companies, treat others like shit on the basis of their personal superstitions, which is unjustifiable and destructive.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is hard not to do if you're on the internet and the target of a hate campaign. Guess they should just leave the internet when the hate mob decides it's time for them to go?
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/l...
They held off for a release.
Now if only they hadn't crippled it then told those who were asking them to dial down the security to go away.
So why don't they just relicense the .NET CLR and the rest of the packages under the Apache 2 license? It lets people use things as freely as the MIT/BSD licenses as everything else and contains the patent guarantees.
Until then, anything not under Apache 2 is suspect.
Was there? The whole thing was classified at best. Keep in mind that Bush explicitly stated that he dhttp://news.slashdot.org/story/15/06/07/0313256/everyone-hates-harvard#idn't care about Osama anymore, once he got into Iraq.
Given the millions playing LoL, I don't get the impression that they "intimidate" anyone. On the other hand, there are people who like to play the game AND like seeing people play it at the highest levels possible, and this is true for many games.
They have? Last I checked they have since backtracked to the point of sponsoring some tournaments. Which one did they shut down?
If you're for-profit charge people to watch, yes.
The leagues aren't relevant if no one plays the game. And given the leagues are usually for-profit, I'm not understanding the problem...?
My last experience with an RPC1 modification had Windows declare that my DVD drive was, suddenly, obsolete and unusable for video playback.
What coverup? Oh, the one that has to be there so the GOP can blame Obama for something. Fuck, people talk about "BDS" but "ODS" is damn near a clinical diagnosis in the reactionary population here.
I think you made a typo:
Mozilla 2015: We want to continue to exist, and are currently dependent on a competitor.
(Handful of noisy) Users 2015: WAHT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING! You can't survive, you have the stay unchanging and do exactly as we want without ever bothering us even if that means you go out of business. Oh fuck it I don't want you SPYING on me, you terrible people. I'm going to use Chrome!
This is the sort of unhinged bullshit that makes me disregard the criticism directed towards Mozilla these days.
Not much, but the disappointment is that it isn't an Intel GPU.
Man, I love your posts because of how just shy of completely unhinged they are.
When someone can provide concrete examples of this, rather than anecdotes and argument from emotion, I'll be more willing to listen. Until then, it seems mostly knee-jerk reaction and blaming everything on the target of one's reactionary hatred than anything concrete. But then that's pretty much par for the course with systemd.
And your links are either just shy of image macros or also from sites of people whose arguements are so terrible they read:
As quoted from your 4th link, very first sentence. So unbelievably, stupidly hyperbolic they can't be taken seriously.
That's because you could very well be making shit up.
And this screams at me "I'm hairyfeet, and I'm making shit up because I can't come up with a factual, data-backed argument!"
But it's a typical hairyfeet rant. Light on reality, heavy on emotion.
Individual chips have an upper cap on speed, but that's why every SSD on the market accesses numerous devices in parallel. All you need to do to make an SSD go faster is add more NAND devices in parallel and a slightly faster controller to support them.
Maybe if you have no idea what you're talking about.
None of the people you quoted appear to give a damn about the future of America or Mankind, either. They simply chose a different route to more money and power for themselves - one that hurts far, far more.
No, "corporatism" was Mussolini's preferred phrase, over that of "fascism." It is not "fascism" by any stretch of the imagination for a company to get a loan from the government.
And subjected himself to the whims of the corporations that gave him money? I'm sure they totally wouldn't interfere with the way the company operated, they'd never start demanding ridiculous growth at the cost of product quality and customer service, not at all.
At worst there is no difference. At best, it prevented an actually innovative company from sinking and its technology dispersing into the market, never to be heard from again while GM et. al. continued doing what they were doing.
Only because those borders are as porous as can be for corporations and what they desire, for you and me they are quite well sealed. And the notion that they're "better" is illusory. Having worked for several years with one outsourcing firm, I know the crap they churn out and their utter inability to move fast enough to get the job done. If you want it done right, or at all, do it inside.
You mean as the oligarchs in this world take more and more of the profits and shit on everyone below them. Well, yes, we'll just come to grips with the fact that we're all being robbed by a small number of monied elite. I suspect it won't end well for them.
It's not a double standard. A business exists by virtue of the rules imposed by society, and said license comes with conditions.
The person does not come with any such rules.
You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.
Presumably we've made it clear that there are conditions one must agree to in exchange for setting up a business in this country. One is that you don't discriminate against people for certain specific reasons, particularly when those reasons cover large swaths of people. We fought this battle ~50 years ago, with the same bullshit arguments ("God says it's a sin!") and it's still no more right or sane than it was back then.
He didn't say that either.
What he did do was lash out at the people pushing this law for being arbitrary, hypocritical, superstitious, bigoted, and (most importantly) wrong. It's a frequent problem with people whose religion has privilege and a marked persecution complex.
"Klansman" is not a protected class. Of course, would you know if he came in while not dressed so as to call himself out so obviously? No!
And if you knew who he was, you could refuse to sell to him individually.
Or whole towns could adopt similarly hateful attitudes and make it de-facto. Why the fuck are we wandering back down this path? Oh right, because Christian Love^WHate.
What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone. Businesses are already prohibited from acting in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner towards people. They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.
Well, religion is bullshit, by and large, which is why laws like this are terrible. You have the First Amendment, you don't need to have your superstition put on a privileged pedestal.
They already have that freedom. What businesses don't have the freedom to do is to treat people differently on an arbitrary basis, and the government of Indiana is trying to change it so people can, via companies, treat others like shit on the basis of their personal superstitions, which is unjustifiable and destructive.
This is that gambit. If you cannot turn secure boot off, you cannot alter the keys.
The (x86) Surface is a standard PC, you can install and run Linux on it.
Of course, that requires giving money to Microsoft and not everyone wants their keyboard or solely the hardware on offer in the Surface.
It's a surface mount, single-package SSD.