However, many people believe (consciously or unconsciously), or act as if they believe - which in practical terms is much the same - the sharing they do on Facebook is more controlled than it actually is. Facebook actively contributes to this, by not making it at all clear or easily discoverable exactly who has access to the things you post there, or the conversations you have. (Take, for instance, the blurring of the rather large difference between a private two-way conversation, and a 'wall-to-wall', which feels like one but is visible to anyone with access to the respective walls).
no-one's expecting to be able to saturate their link all the time; no ISP offers this (though you have to look quite closely at the terms and conditions before you find the AUP that gets them out of it, usually). What's expected is to be able to achieve reasonable performance at a sensible level of usage, which Comcast clearly isn't offering. Don't do the ridiculous math based on everyone using 1Mb/s. Try instead a more realistic calculus where perhaps 10% of users use 50-200GB transfer per month, 70% use 10-50, 19% use 0-10 and 1% use over 200GB and will get kicked out just as soon as the AUP team gets to them. Then damn well pay for the backhaul necessary to provide that level of service. Most ISPs seem to manage it; as others have posted, Verizon don't seem to have any trouble.
Alternatively, be upfront and offer a tiered range of plans based on limited amounts of data transfer: $XX for XXGB. And actually provide what you advertise. Either way would be fine. But don't make your offer based on maximum speed capability and then provide an oversaturated backhaul link so no-one can achieve anything like a reasonable transfer rate at peak times.
never mind the debate about whether it's right to aggressively 'protect' the rights of pharma companies, did anyone actually see any pharmaceutical sites at all in the initial list of seized domains? I only remember file sharing sites and counterfeit fashion stuff.
Sounds like the classic PR tactic to me: cite the most horrible possible thing your new law could be used to prevent, when it's actually going to be used for something entirely different. 'We need these CCTV cameras to protect us from child-molesting terrorists! (oh, but we're also going to use them to have you sent to Guantanamo Bay for parking illegally. But don't think about that too hard.)'
I haven't played the game, but nothing in the cited text indicates he did copy the character design. The main character isn't described at all. The adversaries are described as 'ghosts'; Namco of course does not have copyright on every possible way you can draw a ghost. The power pills, ditto: they're just described as 'power pills'. There's no indication they use the same design as Namco's power pills.
S/PDIF output to a decent amp from either a good old Chaintech AV710 or a Turtle Beach USB. all problems ever, solved, I'll take my consulting fee now, thanks.
(bit hard to buy the AV710s these days, sadly. fortunately for me, I have a stockpile.)
you mean, the 'tax and spend liberals' are actually proving to increase the debt just as little as the side of fiscal good sense and small government? interesting!
conservatives seem very happy to wave the comparative size of the defence and social security budgets around, but I'm really not sure why. They achieve completely different things. What does their comparative size have to do with anything?
This is kind of overstated. RHEL works fine as an enterprise desktop; it's used that way internally at RH and by some RH customers. It's probably not what you want on your home desktop, but it's going too far to say RHEL is for servers only.
"those given stimulation running in the opposite direction, left to right, did markedly worse at these puzzles than those given no current, with their ability matching that of an average six-year-old. The effects were not short-lived, either. When the volunteers whose performance improved was re-tested six months later, the benefits appear to have persisted."
Christ, did they re-test the ones given the *bad* current after six months? I wonder if they're lining up a serious lawsuit now...
Thing is, Wayland isn't a Canonical pet project; it's the pet project of Kristian Hogsborg, who used to work for Red Hat and now works for Intel. As far as anyone can tell, Canonical doesn't contribute anything to Wayland at present. This is just Mark saying 'hey, we like Wayland, we want to use it'.
"Ubuntu is more aimed at polished experience for the end user in terms of QA prior to the release. Fedora developers however rely on early user reports after the release."
/etc/modprobe.d is a typical example of the neat system of config snippets: *any* file in it with the extension.conf is parsed assuming the same format and purpose as/etc/modprobe.conf ./etc/modprobe.d/xhci.conf is not part of any Fedora package or any upstream codebase, it's just a convenient filename to stick in/etc/modprobe.d for this purpose. Which is the reason for the use of > rather than >> , though I suppose >> would have worked just as well.
again, the idea that Fedora is 'this kind of distro' is only the idea of whoever submitted this article to Slashdot, and it's not what Fedora considers itself to be. Nor, I'd argue, is it a reasonable description of Fedora from a disinterested outsider's perspective.
The stuff in the article is the Slashdot author's gloss. That's not how the Fedora project sees itself. And you don't need to compile a kernel to use Fedora.
SJVN: Look at the bug reports I linked to: they have confirmations from multiple reporters that the bugs are fixed. I've got two F14 systems and a couple of VMs here, I can run Brasero on any of them and it works fine, for instance. The only bug that you mentioned that isn't fixed, exactly, is the USB 3.0 problem: USB 3.0 support was actually disabled on purpose because if we turn it on it breaks suspend/resume, and that hasn't changed for final (contrary to what I wrote in my comment). We did, however, document workarounds on the Common Bugs page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F14_bugs#usb_3.0 .
You never replied to my comment that 'release candidate' is a tricky concept when it comes to Fedora, because we have 'release candidates' of the Alpha and the Beta as well as 'release candidates' of the final release. I also asked if you could post the filename and sha256sum of the images you tested so I could confirm exactly what it is you were testing, but you didn't reply to that, either.
It's possible that you really are testing the final release and you're seeing bugs that look exactly the same as bugs that other people saw in the Beta and subsequently confirmed were fixed but are in fact *different* bugs, I guess, but it seems unlikely, and there's no way to tell for sure unless you let us know exactly what images you tested.
The idea isn't to use it that way, exactly; the police / intelligence agencies usually use this data *after* they've identified a suspect. The idea is that once they identify someone doing something they don't like the looks of, they can go and pull that person's communications intercepts to figure out who else that person is in contact with. The idea isn't to use the data en masse.
Why *is* it that science crackpots can never manage to scrounge up a decent headshot? Looking at the web site, the first one is at least a professional job (shame it's such a bad one), but the rest look like they were cut out of high school yearbooks. Or wanted posters. I mean, it's not like it costs a lot, guys.
Makes sense to me, for most things anyway. I've tried most of the Australian 'ports' that are sold where I live (Canada); not a single one of 'em tastes as good as, or even very much like, a proper Portuguese vintage or tawny port. They're just not the same thing at all. Ditto with the similar stuff produced in other countries (including Canada), actually, but those can't be called port as those countries have the relevant agreements with the EU too...
Well, this is a very 'company-centric' view, by the looks of it. Think about what 'company data' is.
Say you're a salesperson for an electronics retailer. Someone comes in and wants to buy, oh, a TV. You give that person fantastic service they're happy with, they buy a TV, they love it. They come back the next week a buy a camera. Then some other stuff. Every time they come and search you out because you gave them such great service, and they feel happy dealing with you. Finally, you leave the job. On leaving, you take their phone number out of the company system and give them a call and say 'hey, just wanted to let you know I'm not working at Big Electronics Store any more, but if you need any help with all that stuff you bought from me, just give me a call on this number!'
I suspect, according to the terms of this survey, that would be 'taking company data'. But is it wrong? The customer was dealing with _you_ as much as, or more than, they were dealing with Big Electronics Store. I'd see this more as a sad indictment of the victory of the very American philosophy of the supremacy of the corporate entity over the personal relationship, myself.
(no, this is not a thinly-veiled version of my life. I've never worked as a salesperson, actually. Just a hypothetical.)
Haven't read the full article, but given what the Slashdot summary says, it seems it's rather '75% of people careless enough to lose their email or facebook password somehow used the same one for the other service'.
This is significant, because I rather suspect that the people smart enough not to use the same password for both things are the same people smart enough _not to post that password on their fucking blog_ (the type of mechanism the summary suggests the survey authors used to gather the samples).
Slashdot Mirror
However, many people believe (consciously or unconsciously), or act as if they believe - which in practical terms is much the same - the sharing they do on Facebook is more controlled than it actually is. Facebook actively contributes to this, by not making it at all clear or easily discoverable exactly who has access to the things you post there, or the conversations you have. (Take, for instance, the blurring of the rather large difference between a private two-way conversation, and a 'wall-to-wall', which feels like one but is visible to anyone with access to the respective walls).
no-one's expecting to be able to saturate their link all the time; no ISP offers this (though you have to look quite closely at the terms and conditions before you find the AUP that gets them out of it, usually). What's expected is to be able to achieve reasonable performance at a sensible level of usage, which Comcast clearly isn't offering. Don't do the ridiculous math based on everyone using 1Mb/s. Try instead a more realistic calculus where perhaps 10% of users use 50-200GB transfer per month, 70% use 10-50, 19% use 0-10 and 1% use over 200GB and will get kicked out just as soon as the AUP team gets to them. Then damn well pay for the backhaul necessary to provide that level of service. Most ISPs seem to manage it; as others have posted, Verizon don't seem to have any trouble.
Alternatively, be upfront and offer a tiered range of plans based on limited amounts of data transfer: $XX for XXGB. And actually provide what you advertise. Either way would be fine. But don't make your offer based on maximum speed capability and then provide an oversaturated backhaul link so no-one can achieve anything like a reasonable transfer rate at peak times.
...the multiplayer book. Because everything's better with more people!
never mind the debate about whether it's right to aggressively 'protect' the rights of pharma companies, did anyone actually see any pharmaceutical sites at all in the initial list of seized domains? I only remember file sharing sites and counterfeit fashion stuff.
Sounds like the classic PR tactic to me: cite the most horrible possible thing your new law could be used to prevent, when it's actually going to be used for something entirely different. 'We need these CCTV cameras to protect us from child-molesting terrorists! (oh, but we're also going to use them to have you sent to Guantanamo Bay for parking illegally. But don't think about that too hard.)'
I haven't played the game, but nothing in the cited text indicates he did copy the character design. The main character isn't described at all. The adversaries are described as 'ghosts'; Namco of course does not have copyright on every possible way you can draw a ghost. The power pills, ditto: they're just described as 'power pills'. There's no indication they use the same design as Namco's power pills.
S/PDIF output to a decent amp from either a good old Chaintech AV710 or a Turtle Beach USB. all problems ever, solved, I'll take my consulting fee now, thanks.
(bit hard to buy the AV710s these days, sadly. fortunately for me, I have a stockpile.)
you mean, the 'tax and spend liberals' are actually proving to increase the debt just as little as the side of fiscal good sense and small government? interesting!
conservatives seem very happy to wave the comparative size of the defence and social security budgets around, but I'm really not sure why. They achieve completely different things. What does their comparative size have to do with anything?
This is kind of overstated. RHEL works fine as an enterprise desktop; it's used that way internally at RH and by some RH customers. It's probably not what you want on your home desktop, but it's going too far to say RHEL is for servers only.
"those given stimulation running in the opposite direction, left to right, did markedly worse at these puzzles than those given no current, with their ability matching that of an average six-year-old. The effects were not short-lived, either. When the volunteers whose performance improved was re-tested six months later, the benefits appear to have persisted."
Christ, did they re-test the ones given the *bad* current after six months? I wonder if they're lining up a serious lawsuit now...
Thing is, Wayland isn't a Canonical pet project; it's the pet project of Kristian Hogsborg, who used to work for Red Hat and now works for Intel. As far as anyone can tell, Canonical doesn't contribute anything to Wayland at present. This is just Mark saying 'hey, we like Wayland, we want to use it'.
"Ubuntu is more aimed at polished experience for the end user in terms of QA prior to the release. Fedora developers however rely on early user reports after the release."
This is not true.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing
Erm, pointing out that the bugs he mention have been fixed is quite a long way from a 'flame war'.
"Of course, then naming scheme is incredibly difficult to follow"
we keep it that way to make sure not too many people download the pre-releases. ;)
/etc/modprobe.d is a typical example of the neat system of config snippets: *any* file in it with the extension .conf is parsed assuming the same format and purpose as /etc/modprobe.conf . /etc/modprobe.d/xhci.conf is not part of any Fedora package or any upstream codebase, it's just a convenient filename to stick in /etc/modprobe.d for this purpose. Which is the reason for the use of > rather than >> , though I suppose >> would have worked just as well.
again, the idea that Fedora is 'this kind of distro' is only the idea of whoever submitted this article to Slashdot, and it's not what Fedora considers itself to be. Nor, I'd argue, is it a reasonable description of Fedora from a disinterested outsider's perspective.
"Only a masochist would willing run Debian stable, CEntOS, or RHEL for that purpose."
Pretty much all the non-engineering staff at Red Hat run RHEL on the desktop, FWIW. =)
The stuff in the article is the Slashdot author's gloss. That's not how the Fedora project sees itself. And you don't need to compile a kernel to use Fedora.
SJVN: Look at the bug reports I linked to: they have confirmations from multiple reporters that the bugs are fixed. I've got two F14 systems and a couple of VMs here, I can run Brasero on any of them and it works fine, for instance. The only bug that you mentioned that isn't fixed, exactly, is the USB 3.0 problem: USB 3.0 support was actually disabled on purpose because if we turn it on it breaks suspend/resume, and that hasn't changed for final (contrary to what I wrote in my comment). We did, however, document workarounds on the Common Bugs page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F14_bugs#usb_3.0 .
You never replied to my comment that 'release candidate' is a tricky concept when it comes to Fedora, because we have 'release candidates' of the Alpha and the Beta as well as 'release candidates' of the final release. I also asked if you could post the filename and sha256sum of the images you tested so I could confirm exactly what it is you were testing, but you didn't reply to that, either.
It's possible that you really are testing the final release and you're seeing bugs that look exactly the same as bugs that other people saw in the Beta and subsequently confirmed were fixed but are in fact *different* bugs, I guess, but it seems unlikely, and there's no way to tell for sure unless you let us know exactly what images you tested.
yes, clearly that's the *biggest* plausibility issue with the James Bond franchise.
The idea isn't to use it that way, exactly; the police / intelligence agencies usually use this data *after* they've identified a suspect. The idea is that once they identify someone doing something they don't like the looks of, they can go and pull that person's communications intercepts to figure out who else that person is in contact with. The idea isn't to use the data en masse.
For Christ's sake, nobody tell them about IRC.
Why *is* it that science crackpots can never manage to scrounge up a decent headshot? Looking at the web site, the first one is at least a professional job (shame it's such a bad one), but the rest look like they were cut out of high school yearbooks. Or wanted posters. I mean, it's not like it costs a lot, guys.
Makes sense to me, for most things anyway. I've tried most of the Australian 'ports' that are sold where I live (Canada); not a single one of 'em tastes as good as, or even very much like, a proper Portuguese vintage or tawny port. They're just not the same thing at all. Ditto with the similar stuff produced in other countries (including Canada), actually, but those can't be called port as those countries have the relevant agreements with the EU too...
Well, this is a very 'company-centric' view, by the looks of it. Think about what 'company data' is.
Say you're a salesperson for an electronics retailer. Someone comes in and wants to buy, oh, a TV. You give that person fantastic service they're happy with, they buy a TV, they love it. They come back the next week a buy a camera. Then some other stuff. Every time they come and search you out because you gave them such great service, and they feel happy dealing with you. Finally, you leave the job. On leaving, you take their phone number out of the company system and give them a call and say 'hey, just wanted to let you know I'm not working at Big Electronics Store any more, but if you need any help with all that stuff you bought from me, just give me a call on this number!'
I suspect, according to the terms of this survey, that would be 'taking company data'. But is it wrong? The customer was dealing with _you_ as much as, or more than, they were dealing with Big Electronics Store. I'd see this more as a sad indictment of the victory of the very American philosophy of the supremacy of the corporate entity over the personal relationship, myself.
(no, this is not a thinly-veiled version of my life. I've never worked as a salesperson, actually. Just a hypothetical.)
Haven't read the full article, but given what the Slashdot summary says, it seems it's rather '75% of people careless enough to lose their email or facebook password somehow used the same one for the other service'.
This is significant, because I rather suspect that the people smart enough not to use the same password for both things are the same people smart enough _not to post that password on their fucking blog_ (the type of mechanism the summary suggests the survey authors used to gather the samples).