The regular Keurig machine makes filtered coffee; it is not an espresso machine. It makes coffee under pressure - more pressure than a drip machine, obviously, but much less than a proper espresso machine.
Yeah, I used to be a coffee snob too. The convenience of having a fresh, hot cup of coffee within a minute of stumbling downstairs every morning is worth a lot; not having to clean the grounds out of a french press is worth a lot too. Tastes vary, but with 50 or more varieties, there's usually something worth drinking. And, hey, convenience is what sells today; otherwise people would wait to get home to make their phone calls.
I don't understand the drawbacks of an expresso machine though. They rock.
I have and old cheap one that works on pressure from boiling the water at home. It is great, and since there is no pump or anything it will never break. I do have to descale it occasionally though to get rid of the lime scale.
Both make lovely coffee. I can use both to froth milk if I can be bothered. But best of all I can put in them any ground coffee I choose depending on my mood. My current favourite is this stuff: http://www.taylorscoffee.co.uk...
So what are the advantages of a pod over this solution? The delonghi machine above takes pods but I have never seen any benefit that made me want to buy more when the free ones we got with it ran out.
+1 the first comment to make sense. the bar owner should set a clear policy on how glass should be used, and the bartender should be the one to step in when someone is out of line. they shouldn't have let things happen in the first place.
Lol. Have you ever worked in a bar?
Generally you earn minimum wage for not enough hours to actually take home enough to live on (bars are only busy at night). Sod that, if the patrons want to kill each other no barman is going to step in unless they are being paid the going rate that security (bouncers) earn.
Hmmm, let's see. Several tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of floating kit, carrying possibly just as much value in cargo, int he middle of nowhere, with no-one in sight, just a video camera. Hmmm. Will the pirates at least wave and say thank you to the crew when they take manual control of the ship? How about just looting a few cargo containers as it's travelling along?
Not quite. Currently piracy only occurs in a few areas of the world, all of which are quite heavily patrolled by various international naval task forces.
In those areas you might be able to board one of these ships and take control of it, but you can be pretty sure that there will be an armed boarding party from one of those naval warships en route pretty quickly. Currently you can threaten to kill the crew if they do not back off but with that threat gone you are going to have a hard time getting that ship back to a pirate friendly port without being boarded and then shot (unless you are on deck in case they will shoot you then board afterwards).
If the pirates move to areas of open ocean they might have more luck, but that requires serious ocean going vessels of your own rather than the little skiffs they currently use. Even then you still have to put into a pirate friendly port sometime, and if you have to sail half way round the world to get there you can still bet on someone asking some questions along the way.
Anwar al-Awlaki's case wasn't extrajudicial execution, it was killing in war.
The US is not at war with Yemen.
The rough process of drone strikes seems to me to be:
1) US President wants you dead. 2) He tells the CIA 3) You get blown up by a hellfire missile in a foreign country.
I am sorry but that is not due process in my book. Why not at least try them in absentia before killing them?
I am not saying that the outcome in this guys case would have been any different, but adding a few judicial checks and balances to the current system would in my eyes put the US on a much stronger moral footing.
The best way to avoid having your game overrun by cheaters is by making it near impossible to cheat on it.
But that takes actual skill and effort unlike using invasive cheat detectors.
Your post is pretty light on details of how to do that, what do you recommend?
For instance on many FPS the cheats overlay something over the game graphics indicating where other players are on the map, effectively allowing you to see through walls. The game itself running on your PC has to known what is on the other side of the wall so you hit them if you shoot through it, a cheat (running as admin) can eavesdrop on the memory the games uses, extract info like this and the display it to you.
This is the big problem, the cheat software usually runs with elevated privileges and can then use them to inspect the memory the game uses. I guess the game could try and encrypt everything it stored in memory in real time but I am guessing that would incur a performance hit.
You could try and push more stuff like this to the server so only the server knew where everyone was and your own running copy of the game only knew about people you could actually see but that means so much stuff is bound by your network latency.
Then you have the problem about using the same overlaying technique to help identify targets at distance or camouflaged. In this case they can show up on normal players screens so the local running copy of the game has to know about them, but you can overlay a bright red outline or something to make them stand out as part of your cheat software.
I am not a gamer so I don't know if this is permitted by their TOS.
However, I don't care if they are sending a hash or the actual DNS inquiry. If they have a matching hash on their end, they are simply translating one entry into another form and back again. How do we know the limit of hashes for sites they have accumulated outside of known cheat sites?
If their TOS permits it, well, then buyer beware. But, I remember how everyone kicked and screamed when Apple and Microsoft did similar things.
They ARE examining your personal DNS history cache and sending, supposedly, matching entries. That is spyware - pure, simple and evil.
If you are not a gamer then why bother contributing to a discussion that specifically deals with online gaming?
The truth is that to make a successful online game now you need to do something about cheats. They ruin the game for everyone.
The two main anticheat products I know of are VAC and Punkbuster and both are pretty invasive. They need to be.
The moron who noticed this behaviour then posted it on hacking forum so you can be fairly sure he was a cheating scumbag trying to find out how he got caught. We don't know how many innocent people have this happening if any.
It wouldn't, for example, prevent anyone from cheating by doing some browsing at the local coffee shop to find the cheats and then coming home to play games on the desktop system at home.
You get the reply, but I think many of you here are missing the point about why Steam might be doing this. They probably don't care about your browsing history, when they care about is other bits of software doing DNS requests.
In my very limited experience these sort of cheats that VAC are looking for are now a subscription service. They know that VAC or PB or whatever will detect them very quickly, so they update them regularly and you subscribe. That means the cheat software probably phones home to check your subscription is still valid and see if the game has been updated to detect the version you are currently running. VAC is probably trying to detect that phoning home.
Of course, now everyone know they do this the cheat authors will just make sure they bypass the DNS cache and VAC will probably have to find another way.
Seriously...even if Valve didn't run VAC, someone else would run an equivalent service (can you say Punkbuster?). All it takes is for one or two companies to say "hey we have this way to detect cheaters, why don't we share the steam keys of the cheaters we find and keep them from playing online on our servers", and there you go.
Exactly, a few years back I used to play America's Army 2 quite a lot. Most clans would stream bans from all the anti-cheat organisations they could on top of punkbuster being built into the game. So once PB kicked you for cheating, that IP you were using got recorded along with the GUID that was linked to your account. Any other accounts linked to that one by GUID or IP also became suspicious.
Obviously if you were on a dynamic IP the IP link would be tenuous because you would be linked to loads of other players, but if you were on a static IP (you could tell by looking through your entire history of games and seeing how often it changed) then you needed to get a new IP before most AA2 servers would let you in. This worked because AA2 logged pretty much every game.
The reality is the people who cheat spoil online gaming for everyone else, just about all games companies therefore have to be seen to do something about it.
I personally would be much happier if Steam simply deleted your account along with all your games if you were caught cheating just once. Actually I would be happier if when you were caught cheating Valve sent someone round to your house to break both your legs but I can foresee a few legal difficulties with this.
Programming 60 real hours in a week is extremely difficult. Try this. Start a timer when you're doing some real work, not goofing off on/. or procrastinating. Trust me, if you can clock 60 real work hours in a week, you'll be mentally exhausted and will have no motivation to do anything for 2 to 3 days.
Exactly. I have come close on a few occasions, maybe managing 50 hours. This was coding a new Javascript API, based on exactly matching an existing system that had no documentation but had a critical design flaw that meant it needed completely rebuilding.
By the end I was seriously getting diminishing returns, I would work 4 hours late after everyone else left (by that point I needed peace to concentrate) but even in those ideal conditions I would probably only get 2 hours work done. I also realised recently when looking back at what I did the next day in my few effective hours the next morning that after 12 hours straight at work the code I produced was pretty awful.
I only did this because I was scared that I would be pulled off the project by my boss who at the time I did not get on with and was looking to undermine me (I had been there before him). Eventually I delivered something that worked though, he realised that nobody else in the company could have and now we generally get on better.
Now I generally do 9 - 5:30. I will put in more hours if the company needs it, but it has to be a need not just that the boss or the client wants something unrealistic.
For instance I recently had to deal with a cloud hosting provided deleting all our network storage on a Sunday night so I had to liaise with them getting the backups restored (they were terrabytes in size and it took too long as their backup provision was too slow) . This took about 36 hours straight of work on the phone to them and then checking stuff, remounting disks, copying data and stuff but after everything was back up I went to sleep for almost 2 days straight so still ended up doing close to a normal number of hours that week.
This was exceptional though, if I did nothing the company would have gone under. Most of the time when IT companies expect you to work silly hours it is not because you are doing disaster recovery, it is simply because someone screwed up quote or in some cases where the boss wrongly thinks that simply maximising the number of hours he gets people sat at their desks is in his interest even though they lose motivation.
Boot times are mostly irrelevant. You have them once a day, typically. Why people focus on this thing is beyond me.
I think they are irrelevant to most techies, yes as we have a habit of just leaving our PC's on even when not using them. In my case I powered my machine up this morning and have been pottering around all day with it on in the background. Ubuntu has always had the aim of creating an OS that can appeal to all though and that includes appealing to people like my missus downstairs. She would get annoyed if her laptop on the coffee table took longer than it does to boot since she turns it on and off as needed. Personally I use Mint so I guess my machines will end up on systemd too unless I ever decide I have enough time to move back to Gentoo.
I was more surprised when Debian announced they were moving to systemd since I always consider that more of a server OS, now that they have it makes perfect sense for Ubuntu to follow.
In short, for a server, I have yet to see a single advantage of systemd over SysV init.
You are probably right, I always thought the advantage of systemd and and upstart was so that Linux desktops cold start matching Windows bootup times by starting lots of services in parallel. I guess the only time that benefits a server is the once a year you might actually need a reboot.
I think it's good Shuttleworth was able to suck up his pride and go along with this decision to prevent fragmentation. I do however call the original decision slightly into question, but that's only because I've gotten sort of used to upstart. Hopefully anything good that was implemented in upstart but was not in systemd will make its way over.
I doubt he gives two shits about pride, he did not develop upstart personally (so has less reason to feel attached to one of his creations) and now does not have to pay the developers to work on upstart in house. You can be pretty sure the only reason Cannonical created upstart was because there was something they needed but could not be done using sysvinit, now that ubuntu's upstream moved to something they can use he is probably over the moon.
I suggest looking up the allegations against him before going on with your claims in some detail. Even in worst case scenario where judge also happens to be extremist feminist and actually agrees with insanity that is the case, he's extremely unlikely to get jail simply due to legal constraints on punishments.
Where did I suggest he would get jail time for what he is accused of in Sweden? I didn't. What i did suggest was that we would be deported back to Oz regardless.
If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
Exactly. I have a feeling that the problem here is that Assange knows he is actually guilty as hell in regard to being a shit in exactly the way these women allege. He has been warned by his lawyer that if he returns to Sweden and pleads guilty he will be given a trivial punishment, but then also deported as an undesirable back to Oz. Even if the US did not want him when he got there chances us in the UK would not allow him back into the country, we can do that for any non European we want if they are "not conducive of the public good" in the opinion of the home secretory.
I do not doubt he has been set up, but think that for anyone to know to set him up like this there must of been an awareness that he regularly behaved in a pretty awful way towards members of the opposite sex and that this was a prime way of punishing him. They exploited this but he could have avoided this by not being such a shit in the first place.
The US probably don't care whether he ends up in one of their prisons or not, currently he has his very own prison set up in an embassy.
Why uses a credit card at a cash machine? The fees are outrageous. Payment terminals yes, to get cash, hell to the no
I use my Chip and Pin Visa Debit card at a cash point (To get money out for beer!) with no charge then also use it to pay for stuff when I want it to come straight out of my current account (like in the case of the tasty lunch I am just eating), also with no charge. This is the big advantage, I can have one card I carry around and only need to use my real (MasterCard) credit card for items when I want the extra insurance and protection it gives me, so most of the time I can leave it at home.
It is unknown code and bad design, which is arguably worse.
Actually, that is probably one of the reasons beta exists.
The old slashdot code is old and was apparently written by someone who no longer has anything to do with the site.
In light of this the current developers want to tear it all down and start again like a great many developers do in that situation. It is REALLY hard to maintain and extend a huge site, that was created by someone else, On top of it being difficult it is also not as much fun as creating something new from scratch. Then finally if you develop any website now you are more likely to do it using a bunch of webservices that either website or things like an iphone/andoid app can interact with.
Today's mobiles can handle the full site. Even small phones handle it just fine.
Not in my experience.
On the home page the classic site wastes too much width with pointless side bars on my S3. On the comments pages the left sidebar wastes too much space. Many of the menu links are just too damn small on my phone to be useful.
Ok, many of these problems can be solved with lots of zooming in and out but that is quite difficult when trying to use your phone one handed while clinging on for dear life on mass transit.
Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits.
You realize, of course, that those Guardian journalists work for the Guardian, which is funded by a trust created by a wealthy man, for the purpose of ensuring that the Guardian stayed to the editorial course he had laid out. So, it's EXACTLY a case of a publication with a "rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push."
It would be good to mention that the rich benefactor in question has been pushing up daisies for the better part of a century and so has become a bit "hands off":)
Nowadays how the Guardian covers news and what agenda it pushes is largely determined by the journalists themselves and the editor.
Quite true. Software should generally be Free. One of the benefits that we all gain from this is that, when software doesn't have to be locked up just to force people to pay for it, it can be distributed in source code form. And that helps prevent issues with embedded malware, and embedded exploitation of the users too.
But people who write software need money to feed themselves and their families and not all software is appropriate to an addon service supported model.
I actually think that closed source software is just a symptom of a capitalist society.
Dice want to commercialise Slashdot and are asking you what you are prepered to pay them for it, not for real journalism.
You say that like it is a bad thing. The truth is that we live in a capitalist society where nobody works for free and running a high traffic website like slashdot costs money in hosting, routing, etc.
You have to get the money in to pay for all this stuff somehow be it subscriptions and a paywall or just tons of adverts which you have try and work show to people even though they want to avoid them with ad-block or similar.
If DICE one decided that slashdot was not profitable for them to run then they would have to pay money to keep it running as a loss leader of some kind. They MIGHT do this, but then they might just turn the site off instead. If you would rather that they turned it off you can simulate that quite well now by just leaving and never coming back. If you would rather slashdot still existed in some form then wouldn't you rather it was able to support it's own existence financially?
Id's engines were and are much less buggy, but even still Rage was unplayable at release and I haven't tried it since.
I bought it at (pre)release on PC and never had a problem. Played it all the way though and never had any issues either. Done a few reinstalls as I updated my PC, copied savegames between PC's in different places I was commuting between and never had any issue there either, I wish more games were like that.
The question is, if you actually paid for a copy at release why have you never tried it again since. Since it was DRM'd on steam (even if you bought a retail copy like me) you could not actually have sold it on so it leads me to believe that you either played a pirate copy in which case that is probably the source of most of your problems or you are not being entirely honest.
Google seems willing to pay 10B to rent companies for a while...
No, they paid $10 billion for most of motorola's patents. If you read the full article you would know that they are not selling them on to Lenovo with the rest of the company. That is still expensive based on how much everyone else paid for the Rockstar patents though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
I've owned my own company for 20 years, most of providing services to business. In that time, I've seen a lot of competitors and customers come and go. My experience is that people like to do business with people who treat them right, so the good guys last. Assholes lose customers and partners pretty quickly.
Mostly , it's clear during hard times in an industry. I've had customers ask me more than once prepay a few thousand files to get my company through a rough spot. Once or twice, the employees have purposely waited a week or so to come pick up their paychecks because they knew cash was tight. People don't do that for assholes.
I don't think your small business is comparable to a corporation the size of Sun or Oracle.
Completely different rules apply as your point about staff not picking up their pay when time are tight illustrates as most people who work for large corporations would immediately jump ship if they though their was any danger of not being paid at the end of the month.
Also, you probably have no large institutional shareholders such as pension funds or venture capitalists. If you did you can be damn sure they would not like you doing your utmost to maximize their returns by screwing over everyone else.
This was the sort of big capitalism I was referring to in my post, sorry for not making that clear.
Slashdot Mirror
The regular Keurig machine makes filtered coffee; it is not an espresso machine. It makes coffee under pressure - more pressure than a drip machine, obviously, but much less than a proper espresso machine.
Yeah, I used to be a coffee snob too. The convenience of having a fresh, hot cup of coffee within a minute of stumbling downstairs every morning is worth a lot; not having to clean the grounds out of a french press is worth a lot too. Tastes vary, but with 50 or more varieties, there's usually something worth drinking. And, hey, convenience is what sells today; otherwise people would wait to get home to make their phone calls.
I don't understand the drawbacks of an expresso machine though. They rock.
I have and old cheap one that works on pressure from boiling the water at home. It is great, and since there is no pump or anything it will never break. I do have to descale it occasionally though to get rid of the lime scale.
At work I have once of these:
http://www.delonghi.com/en-GB/...
Both make lovely coffee. I can use both to froth milk if I can be bothered. But best of all I can put in them any ground coffee I choose depending on my mood. My current favourite is this stuff: http://www.taylorscoffee.co.uk...
So what are the advantages of a pod over this solution? The delonghi machine above takes pods but I have never seen any benefit that made me want to buy more when the free ones we got with it ran out.
+1 the first comment to make sense. the bar owner should set a clear policy on how glass should be used, and the bartender should be the one to step in when someone is out of line. they shouldn't have let things happen in the first place.
Lol. Have you ever worked in a bar?
Generally you earn minimum wage for not enough hours to actually take home enough to live on (bars are only busy at night). Sod that, if the patrons want to kill each other no barman is going to step in unless they are being paid the going rate that security (bouncers) earn.
Hmmm, let's see. Several tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of floating kit, carrying possibly just as much value in cargo, int he middle of nowhere, with no-one in sight, just a video camera. Hmmm.
Will the pirates at least wave and say thank you to the crew when they take manual control of the ship? How about just looting a few cargo containers as it's travelling along?
Not quite. Currently piracy only occurs in a few areas of the world, all of which are quite heavily patrolled by various international naval task forces.
In those areas you might be able to board one of these ships and take control of it, but you can be pretty sure that there will be an armed boarding party from one of those naval warships en route pretty quickly. Currently you can threaten to kill the crew if they do not back off but with that threat gone you are going to have a hard time getting that ship back to a pirate friendly port without being boarded and then shot (unless you are on deck in case they will shoot you then board afterwards).
If the pirates move to areas of open ocean they might have more luck, but that requires serious ocean going vessels of your own rather than the little skiffs they currently use. Even then you still have to put into a pirate friendly port sometime, and if you have to sail half way round the world to get there you can still bet on someone asking some questions along the way.
Anwar al-Awlaki's case wasn't extrajudicial execution, it was killing in war.
The US is not at war with Yemen.
The rough process of drone strikes seems to me to be:
1) US President wants you dead.
2) He tells the CIA
3) You get blown up by a hellfire missile in a foreign country.
I am sorry but that is not due process in my book. Why not at least try them in absentia before killing them?
I am not saying that the outcome in this guys case would have been any different, but adding a few judicial checks and balances to the current system would in my eyes put the US on a much stronger moral footing.
The best way to avoid having your game overrun by cheaters is by making it near impossible to cheat on it.
But that takes actual skill and effort unlike using invasive cheat detectors.
Your post is pretty light on details of how to do that, what do you recommend?
For instance on many FPS the cheats overlay something over the game graphics indicating where other players are on the map, effectively allowing you to see through walls. The game itself running on your PC has to known what is on the other side of the wall so you hit them if you shoot through it, a cheat (running as admin) can eavesdrop on the memory the games uses, extract info like this and the display it to you.
This is the big problem, the cheat software usually runs with elevated privileges and can then use them to inspect the memory the game uses. I guess the game could try and encrypt everything it stored in memory in real time but I am guessing that would incur a performance hit.
You could try and push more stuff like this to the server so only the server knew where everyone was and your own running copy of the game only knew about people you could actually see but that means so much stuff is bound by your network latency.
Then you have the problem about using the same overlaying technique to help identify targets at distance or camouflaged. In this case they can show up on normal players screens so the local running copy of the game has to know about them, but you can overlay a bright red outline or something to make them stand out as part of your cheat software.
If Slashdot entered the 21st century, it would be able to render superscript.
Maybe the beta supports it :)
I am not a gamer so I don't know if this is permitted by their TOS.
However, I don't care if they are sending a hash or the actual DNS inquiry. If they have a matching hash on their end, they are simply translating one entry into another form and back again. How do we know the limit of hashes for sites they have accumulated outside of known cheat sites?
If their TOS permits it, well, then buyer beware. But, I remember how everyone kicked and screamed when Apple and Microsoft did similar things.
They ARE examining your personal DNS history cache and sending, supposedly, matching entries. That is spyware - pure, simple and evil.
If you are not a gamer then why bother contributing to a discussion that specifically deals with online gaming?
The truth is that to make a successful online game now you need to do something about cheats. They ruin the game for everyone.
The two main anticheat products I know of are VAC and Punkbuster and both are pretty invasive. They need to be.
The moron who noticed this behaviour then posted it on hacking forum so you can be fairly sure he was a cheating scumbag trying to find out how he got caught. We don't know how many innocent people have this happening if any.
It wouldn't, for example, prevent anyone from cheating by doing some browsing at the local coffee shop to find the cheats and then coming home to play games on the desktop system at home.
You get the reply, but I think many of you here are missing the point about why Steam might be doing this. They probably don't care about your browsing history, when they care about is other bits of software doing DNS requests.
In my very limited experience these sort of cheats that VAC are looking for are now a subscription service. They know that VAC or PB or whatever will detect them very quickly, so they update them regularly and you subscribe. That means the cheat software probably phones home to check your subscription is still valid and see if the game has been updated to detect the version you are currently running. VAC is probably trying to detect that phoning home.
Of course, now everyone know they do this the cheat authors will just make sure they bypass the DNS cache and VAC will probably have to find another way.
Seriously...even if Valve didn't run VAC, someone else would run an equivalent service (can you say Punkbuster?). All it takes is for one or two companies to say "hey we have this way to detect cheaters, why don't we share the steam keys of the cheaters we find and keep them from playing online on our servers", and there you go.
Exactly, a few years back I used to play America's Army 2 quite a lot. Most clans would stream bans from all the anti-cheat organisations they could on top of punkbuster being built into the game. So once PB kicked you for cheating, that IP you were using got recorded along with the GUID that was linked to your account. Any other accounts linked to that one by GUID or IP also became suspicious.
Obviously if you were on a dynamic IP the IP link would be tenuous because you would be linked to loads of other players, but if you were on a static IP (you could tell by looking through your entire history of games and seeing how often it changed) then you needed to get a new IP before most AA2 servers would let you in. This worked because AA2 logged pretty much every game.
The reality is the people who cheat spoil online gaming for everyone else, just about all games companies therefore have to be seen to do something about it.
I personally would be much happier if Steam simply deleted your account along with all your games if you were caught cheating just once. Actually I would be happier if when you were caught cheating Valve sent someone round to your house to break both your legs but I can foresee a few legal difficulties with this.
Programming 60 real hours in a week is extremely difficult. Try this. Start a timer when you're doing some real work, not goofing off on /. or procrastinating. Trust me, if you can clock 60 real work hours in a week, you'll be mentally exhausted and will have no motivation to do anything for 2 to 3 days.
Exactly. I have come close on a few occasions, maybe managing 50 hours. This was coding a new Javascript API, based on exactly matching an existing system that had no documentation but had a critical design flaw that meant it needed completely rebuilding.
By the end I was seriously getting diminishing returns, I would work 4 hours late after everyone else left (by that point I needed peace to concentrate) but even in those ideal conditions I would probably only get 2 hours work done. I also realised recently when looking back at what I did the next day in my few effective hours the next morning that after 12 hours straight at work the code I produced was pretty awful.
I only did this because I was scared that I would be pulled off the project by my boss who at the time I did not get on with and was looking to undermine me (I had been there before him). Eventually I delivered something that worked though, he realised that nobody else in the company could have and now we generally get on better.
Now I generally do 9 - 5:30. I will put in more hours if the company needs it, but it has to be a need not just that the boss or the client wants something unrealistic.
For instance I recently had to deal with a cloud hosting provided deleting all our network storage on a Sunday night so I had to liaise with them getting the backups restored (they were terrabytes in size and it took too long as their backup provision was too slow) . This took about 36 hours straight of work on the phone to them and then checking stuff, remounting disks, copying data and stuff but after everything was back up I went to sleep for almost 2 days straight so still ended up doing close to a normal number of hours that week.
This was exceptional though, if I did nothing the company would have gone under. Most of the time when IT companies expect you to work silly hours it is not because you are doing disaster recovery, it is simply because someone screwed up quote or in some cases where the boss wrongly thinks that simply maximising the number of hours he gets people sat at their desks is in his interest even though they lose motivation.
Boot times are mostly irrelevant. You have them once a day, typically. Why people focus on this thing is beyond me.
I think they are irrelevant to most techies, yes as we have a habit of just leaving our PC's on even when not using them. In my case I powered my machine up this morning and have been pottering around all day with it on in the background. Ubuntu has always had the aim of creating an OS that can appeal to all though and that includes appealing to people like my missus downstairs. She would get annoyed if her laptop on the coffee table took longer than it does to boot since she turns it on and off as needed. Personally I use Mint so I guess my machines will end up on systemd too unless I ever decide I have enough time to move back to Gentoo.
I was more surprised when Debian announced they were moving to systemd since I always consider that more of a server OS, now that they have it makes perfect sense for Ubuntu to follow.
In short, for a server, I have yet to see a single advantage of systemd over SysV init.
You are probably right, I always thought the advantage of systemd and and upstart was so that Linux desktops cold start matching Windows bootup times by starting lots of services in parallel. I guess the only time that benefits a server is the once a year you might actually need a reboot.
I think it's good Shuttleworth was able to suck up his pride and go along with this decision to prevent fragmentation. I do however call the original decision slightly into question, but that's only because I've gotten sort of used to upstart. Hopefully anything good that was implemented in upstart but was not in systemd will make its way over.
I doubt he gives two shits about pride, he did not develop upstart personally (so has less reason to feel attached to one of his creations) and now does not have to pay the developers to work on upstart in house. You can be pretty sure the only reason Cannonical created upstart was because there was something they needed but could not be done using sysvinit, now that ubuntu's upstream moved to something they can use he is probably over the moon.
I suggest looking up the allegations against him before going on with your claims in some detail. Even in worst case scenario where judge also happens to be extremist feminist and actually agrees with insanity that is the case, he's extremely unlikely to get jail simply due to legal constraints on punishments.
Where did I suggest he would get jail time for what he is accused of in Sweden? I didn't. What i did suggest was that we would be deported back to Oz regardless.
If convicted, he would likely serve some time in Sweden, then be extradited to his native Australia on release. Australia does have a history of being a US puppet, so perhaps he is more worried about being extradited from Australia than anywhere.
Exactly. I have a feeling that the problem here is that Assange knows he is actually guilty as hell in regard to being a shit in exactly the way these women allege. He has been warned by his lawyer that if he returns to Sweden and pleads guilty he will be given a trivial punishment, but then also deported as an undesirable back to Oz. Even if the US did not want him when he got there chances us in the UK would not allow him back into the country, we can do that for any non European we want if they are "not conducive of the public good" in the opinion of the home secretory.
I do not doubt he has been set up, but think that for anyone to know to set him up like this there must of been an awareness that he regularly behaved in a pretty awful way towards members of the opposite sex and that this was a prime way of punishing him. They exploited this but he could have avoided this by not being such a shit in the first place.
The US probably don't care whether he ends up in one of their prisons or not, currently he has his very own prison set up in an embassy.
Why uses a credit card at a cash machine? The fees are outrageous.
Payment terminals yes, to get cash, hell to the no
I use my Chip and Pin Visa Debit card at a cash point (To get money out for beer!) with no charge then also use it to pay for stuff when I want it to come straight out of my current account (like in the case of the tasty lunch I am just eating), also with no charge. This is the big advantage, I can have one card I carry around and only need to use my real (MasterCard) credit card for items when I want the extra insurance and protection it gives me, so most of the time I can leave it at home.
Beta is not bad code. It is bad design.
It is unknown code and bad design, which is arguably worse.
Actually, that is probably one of the reasons beta exists.
The old slashdot code is old and was apparently written by someone who no longer has anything to do with the site.
In light of this the current developers want to tear it all down and start again like a great many developers do in that situation. It is REALLY hard to maintain and extend a huge site, that was created by someone else, On top of it being difficult it is also not as much fun as creating something new from scratch. Then finally if you develop any website now you are more likely to do it using a bunch of webservices that either website or things like an iphone/andoid app can interact with.
Today's mobiles can handle the full site. Even small phones handle it just fine.
Not in my experience.
On the home page the classic site wastes too much width with pointless side bars on my S3.
On the comments pages the left sidebar wastes too much space.
Many of the menu links are just too damn small on my phone to be useful.
Ok, many of these problems can be solved with lots of zooming in and out but that is quite difficult when trying to use your phone one handed while clinging on for dear life on mass transit.
Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits.
You realize, of course, that those Guardian journalists work for the Guardian, which is funded by a trust created by a wealthy man, for the purpose of ensuring that the Guardian stayed to the editorial course he had laid out. So, it's EXACTLY a case of a publication with a "rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push."
It would be good to mention that the rich benefactor in question has been pushing up daisies for the better part of a century and so has become a bit "hands off" :)
Nowadays how the Guardian covers news and what agenda it pushes is largely determined by the journalists themselves and the editor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Quite true. Software should generally be Free. One of the benefits that we all gain from this is that, when software doesn't have to be locked up just to force people to pay for it, it can be distributed in source code form. And that helps prevent issues with embedded malware, and embedded exploitation of the users too.
But people who write software need money to feed themselves and their families and not all software is appropriate to an addon service supported model.
I actually think that closed source software is just a symptom of a capitalist society.
Dice want to commercialise Slashdot and are asking you what you are prepered to pay them for it, not for real journalism.
You say that like it is a bad thing. The truth is that we live in a capitalist society where nobody works for free and running a high traffic website like slashdot costs money in hosting, routing, etc.
You have to get the money in to pay for all this stuff somehow be it subscriptions and a paywall or just tons of adverts which you have try and work show to people even though they want to avoid them with ad-block or similar.
If DICE one decided that slashdot was not profitable for them to run then they would have to pay money to keep it running as a loss leader of some kind. They MIGHT do this, but then they might just turn the site off instead. If you would rather that they turned it off you can simulate that quite well now by just leaving and never coming back. If you would rather slashdot still existed in some form then wouldn't you rather it was able to support it's own existence financially?
Id's engines were and are much less buggy, but even still Rage was unplayable at release and I haven't tried it since.
I bought it at (pre)release on PC and never had a problem. Played it all the way though and never had any issues either. Done a few reinstalls as I updated my PC, copied savegames between PC's in different places I was commuting between and never had any issue there either, I wish more games were like that.
The question is, if you actually paid for a copy at release why have you never tried it again since. Since it was DRM'd on steam (even if you bought a retail copy like me) you could not actually have sold it on so it leads me to believe that you either played a pirate copy in which case that is probably the source of most of your problems or you are not being entirely honest.
Only if they get to keep them.
They did. You should really read a bit more about a topic before posting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...
Google seems willing to pay 10B to rent companies for a while...
No, they paid $10 billion for most of motorola's patents. If you read the full article you would know that they are not selling them on to Lenovo with the rest of the company. That is still expensive based on how much everyone else paid for the Rockstar patents though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
I've owned my own company for 20 years, most of providing services to business. In that time, I've seen a lot of competitors and customers come and go. My experience is that people like to do business with people who treat them right, so the good guys last. Assholes lose customers and partners pretty quickly.
Mostly , it's clear during hard times in an industry. I've had customers ask me more than once prepay a few thousand files to get my company through a rough spot. Once or twice, the employees have purposely waited a week or so to come pick up their paychecks because they knew cash was tight. People don't do that for assholes.
I don't think your small business is comparable to a corporation the size of Sun or Oracle.
Completely different rules apply as your point about staff not picking up their pay when time are tight illustrates as most people who work for large corporations would immediately jump ship if they though their was any danger of not being paid at the end of the month.
Also, you probably have no large institutional shareholders such as pension funds or venture capitalists. If you did you can be damn sure they would not like you doing your utmost to maximize their returns by screwing over everyone else.
This was the sort of big capitalism I was referring to in my post, sorry for not making that clear.