See, Finland is not that pragmatic. That's the main problem actually. The country has failed to perform the necessary agile moves, the ones that neighboring countries like Sweden and Estonia have done. We Finns just stand with mouth open and mittens in our hands, stare into the horizon and say "Gee, I guess we could do something about the problems. But not right now. And there are many regulations preventing change anyway, and we cannot quickly change those regulations either." There is a lot of the classic 1970s conservative old world stiffness still present. However, right now a lot of confidence has been placed on PM Sipilä and his government, so we'll see.
I see from your comment that you apparently approve of the government's actions. Fair enough, I just disagree. However, your statement about the confidence placed on the PM could be just a tiny bit more accurate... PM Sipila's approval ratings have plummeted from 60% (June 2015) to 36% (Dec 2015). You simply cannot call that "a lot of confidence".
This would never happen to an institution owned by the benevolent government of a nice, progressive country with constitutional protections for earning a living wage. Oh, wait...
The problem is that our government is far from benevolent. This is the most hard-line capitalistic government during the entire history of the Republic of Finland. This government has made it its mission to completely dismantle every remnant of the welfare state and turn Finland into a tax haven for the rich. The "difficult economic situation" is merely a pretext.
I'm veering off on an off-topic tangent, but the fact is that almost all economists, when asked by the press, have stated that the measures taken by the current government only worsen ad prolong the situation.
A straw man attack consists of refuting an argument which no one is making. It is not a generic term for false arguments. "Open, therefore secure" may be false, but it is not a straw man.
OTOH, since no one is making the case that open source is secure by default, the last line does look like a straw man. (But it's not really.)
I have a recipe for powdered alcohol: - 15 g dry yeast - 5 kg sugar
To use it: 1) Mix with 20 litres of water in sufficiantly large container. 2) Flavour according to taste (optional) 3) Cover but do not seal. For optimal results, use airlock. 4) Keep in room temperature for 1-2 weeks.
I wonder how many people will actually follow the instructions in mixing these things back to booze. Somehow I am inclined to believe people will ignore the instructions and will swallow the stuff with as little water as physically possible.
Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.
It quite clearly does apply, but most Christians today choose to ignore it. "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18
And Jesus is anything but merciful to non-believers: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27
I though the idea of homeopathic water was to dilute the percieved cause* of the ailment. Should diluting a helpful ingredient be considered harmful then?
Quite so, which is why diluted vitamin C will eventually kill you.
So how do they make money if they don't sim lock? I mean, I'm all for that but it doesn't make a lot of sense from a business perspective.
What a weird opinion. The concept of SELLING stuff usually implies making money. Why would they not make money from selling phones? Are you assuming that they give away phones for free?
Insurance is supposed to be about spreading risk of uncertain futures, not giving hand-outs (wealth redistribution) when futures are known..
No, insurance is gambling where the insured places a bet on the chance that he will get ill some time in the future. The insurance company is a casino which dictates the odds. The odds are always favourable to the insurance company, especially when the company has the option of denying you your bet. To the insured, it may look like spreading the risk, but it is really about placing a sucker bet. The casino wins, always.
Of course, an individual who chooses not to take that bet risks being screwed for life, unless he's filthy rich and doesn't need an insurance. That is why the concept of health insurance as business is inherently wrong. It is about threatening people with events out of their control into taking a bet which is unfavourable to them. This is why I, as a non-US citizen, can not give my full support to Obamacare. It's still using a system which is inherently flawed, only slightly better than the previous set of rules. Well, I'm one of the lucky ones. I don't need insurance, I have National Healthcare. You should try it. It rocks!
Wealth redistribution is fine (even though it's not insurance) as long as it follows the precedence outlined by the principle of subsidiarity: self, family, community or church, provincial government, national government, world government.
That is your opinion, based on nothing but opinion. The problem with your order of precedence is that incurs extra cost at every level. Cutting out the extra tiers will cut costs immensely and save money by pure volume. Besides, if there's anything that citizens should be able to rely on their government for, it's health care. Stop pumping your money into the war machinery and corn subsidies. Stop filling your expensive jails with people who smoke a joint. Not saying legalize it, just saying that potheads in jail are a waste of money and bring no value.
Coming from someone who has English as third language, I'd say you're fine without, since all documentation is available in English and most discussion is going on in English. I have actually never used my first or second language for participating in software community discussion. OTOH, these are minor languages with 6-10 million speakers worldwide, all of which learn English in school anyway.
However, among the worlds greater languages, there are certainly a lot of people who can't communicate well in English and there is a lot of discussion in these languages. So I would say, pick one major language that could be useful in all walks of life. Or just pick any language that you are interested in. However, for the sole purpose of participating in the programming community, I don't think time invested will pay off.
There are two crucial reasons for learning a language: necessity and personal motivation. If it isn't necessary for you, you'll have to go with motivation. So, pick a language that you want to learn, because you want to learn it.
Programs from 1998 still run because the language has been stagnant ever since.
You really have don't know anything about Perl, do you? To suggest that Perl has been stagnant from 1998 (v. 5.005) until now (v. 5.16.2) is ridiculuous. The difference is immense. That doesn't mean that backwards compatibility needs to break. You just don't know Perl or its evolution.
Python breaks because it actually improves sometimes. "The main power of Perl has always been its ability to quickly adapt"...seriously? Perl 6 has been stuck in R&D hell for a dozen years now. Even the Duke Nukem Forever team is starting to feel awkward about how long it's taking.
Lessee.... Python 3.0 came out 4 years ago. Still, 2.7 is the one installed by default across the board. Some distros (e.g. latest Red Hat) are still stuck on 2.6. Apparently, most people can do without the improvements in Python 3.0-3.3.
And Perl 6 is another language altogether. Perl 5 will continue to evolve long after the Perl 6 becomes mainstream. I think Larry Wall made a big mistake in using the same name, honestly. But still, you just don't know Perl.
Considering that things like "curfew" and "loitering" ("the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time") are amongst the most commonly prosecuted felonies in the US, just to start with, I don't think it sounds too hyperbolic (e.g. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php). Linger for a few seconds too long on the sidewalk while out to lunch? Sorry, guilty of loitering.
Hyperbole! Please show a case of someone being charged and convicted for loitering after lingering a few seconds! The loitering laws of the US are primarily used to disperse gangs and I'm pretty sure that in most of the cases, the arresting officer has first ordered the suspects to disperse. The SCOTUS has already determined that charging people with "just hanging around" just isn't enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_v._Morales
I'm neither American nor a lawyer and I'm in no way convinced that the US judicial system is particularly good, but it's simply not true that "in America, everyone's a felon, whatever they do". It is hyperbole, BS, FUD and myth.
The woman that he is alleged to have raped has tried to drop the case that she was persuaded to bring.
In most of the world, if a woman does not want to bring a case, the suspect has nothing to answer. What he may have done does not seem to have offended her sufficiently for her to want a court case.
Sweden is not the US were the alleged victim can decide to drop charges. It is indeed the public prosecutor's duty to prosecute, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victims. This is useful, eg. in cases of domestic violence where a wife may be prone to dropping the charges, due to coercion, emotions or fear.
However, the fact that there are still no charges, only suspicions, make it very clear that Assange will never be prosecuted. If there were any evidence, he would already have been prosecuted. So the only possibility for a successful prosecution and conviction is his own confession. Can the prosecutor actually expect Assange to confess? He has already been questioned, so it is unthinkable that he's going to change his story in a way that would convict him.
So why demand extradition when there is no possibility of a conviction or even prosecution? Yes, in Assange's shoes I would be afraid. I would be very afraid!
Installing additional hardware on a computer is most definately a function that SHOULD require administrative priviledges on a computer. Sounds like "working as intended".
Except that connecting your computer to a printer is not installing hardware. Root privileges are only there to protect the integrity of the file system and operating system. If you have physical access to the computer, you already have the possibility of smashing it to smithereens, or compromising the security.
There is no reason why a properly implemented printing system should be potentially harmful to the OS. The most dangerous action of installing a printer is connecting the USB cable, which could potentially fry your computer if the hardware is malicious. Requiring root privileges will not protect you against that. After that, a properly implemented printing system is a greater risk to the printer than the OS. Requiring root privileges actually makes the printing system more potentially harmful than it needs to be. Period.
When commenting the opinions of one of The Giants, always think twice before clicking submit. There's the remote chance that they actually *are* smarter than you, no matter what you think.
Slashdot Mirror
At this very moment, my dad's computer is attempting to download Windows 10 in the background, automatically without asking permission.
He has Dialup internet.
Let that sink in.
Nope... It does not sink in. Dialup internet went extinct long before Windows 10 was even conceived.
See, Finland is not that pragmatic. That's the main problem actually. The country has failed to perform the necessary agile moves, the ones that neighboring countries like Sweden and Estonia have done. We Finns just stand with mouth open and mittens in our hands, stare into the horizon and say "Gee, I guess we could do something about the problems. But not right now. And there are many regulations preventing change anyway, and we cannot quickly change those regulations either." There is a lot of the classic 1970s conservative old world stiffness still present. However, right now a lot of confidence has been placed on PM Sipilä and his government, so we'll see.
I see from your comment that you apparently approve of the government's actions. Fair enough, I just disagree. However, your statement about the confidence placed on the PM could be just a tiny bit more accurate... PM Sipila's approval ratings have plummeted from 60% (June 2015) to 36% (Dec 2015). You simply cannot call that "a lot of confidence".
This would never happen to an institution owned by the benevolent government of a nice, progressive country with constitutional protections for earning a living wage. Oh, wait...
The problem is that our government is far from benevolent. This is the most hard-line capitalistic government during the entire history of the Republic of Finland. This government has made it its mission to completely dismantle every remnant of the welfare state and turn Finland into a tax haven for the rich. The "difficult economic situation" is merely a pretext.
I'm veering off on an off-topic tangent, but the fact is that almost all economists, when asked by the press, have stated that the measures taken by the current government only worsen ad prolong the situation.
A straw man attack consists of refuting an argument which no one is making. It is not a generic term for false arguments. "Open, therefore secure" may be false, but it is not a straw man.
OTOH, since no one is making the case that open source is secure by default, the last line does look like a straw man. (But it's not really.)
I have a recipe for powdered alcohol:
- 15 g dry yeast
- 5 kg sugar
To use it:
1) Mix with 20 litres of water in sufficiantly large container.
2) Flavour according to taste (optional)
3) Cover but do not seal. For optimal results, use airlock.
4) Keep in room temperature for 1-2 weeks.
Enjoy!
I wonder how many people will actually follow the instructions in mixing these things back to booze. Somehow I am inclined to believe people will ignore the instructions and will swallow the stuff with as little water as physically possible.
There... FTFY!
Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.
It quite clearly does apply, but most Christians today choose to ignore it.
"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18
And Jesus is anything but merciful to non-believers:
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27
How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???
Ahem.... Six million? Killed by Christians because of the very sin of being non-Christian.
Perl 6 is about love, care, tolerance and friendship.
Well, it clearly isn't about deadlines!
No, it's about undeadlines!
I can understand you not bothering to RTFA, but at least you could RTFSubject! Some people... Sheesh!
I though the idea of homeopathic water was to dilute the percieved cause* of the ailment. Should diluting a helpful ingredient be considered harmful then?
Quite so, which is why diluted vitamin C will eventually kill you.
Shouldn't sea water be considered a wonder drug in homeopathy, because everything eventually makes its way into the ocean and gets ultra-diluted.
Well, I hear that diluted sea water is a very effective cure against drowning.
Diluted enough times with pure water, though, maybe these traces would be even more powerful.
According to the homeopathic principle, its efficacy would be directed at ailments caused by penicillin.
So how do they make money if they don't sim lock? I mean, I'm all for that but it doesn't make a lot of sense from a business perspective.
What a weird opinion. The concept of SELLING stuff usually implies making money. Why would they not make money from selling phones? Are you assuming that they give away phones for free?
Insurance is supposed to be about spreading risk of uncertain futures, not giving hand-outs (wealth redistribution) when futures are known..
No, insurance is gambling where the insured places a bet on the chance that he will get ill some time in the future. The insurance company is a casino which dictates the odds. The odds are always favourable to the insurance company, especially when the company has the option of denying you your bet. To the insured, it may look like spreading the risk, but it is really about placing a sucker bet. The casino wins, always.
Of course, an individual who chooses not to take that bet risks being screwed for life, unless he's filthy rich and doesn't need an insurance. That is why the concept of health insurance as business is inherently wrong. It is about threatening people with events out of their control into taking a bet which is unfavourable to them. This is why I, as a non-US citizen, can not give my full support to Obamacare. It's still using a system which is inherently flawed, only slightly better than the previous set of rules. Well, I'm one of the lucky ones. I don't need insurance, I have National Healthcare. You should try it. It rocks!
Wealth redistribution is fine (even though it's not insurance) as long as it follows the precedence outlined by the principle of subsidiarity: self, family, community or church, provincial government, national government, world government.
That is your opinion, based on nothing but opinion. The problem with your order of precedence is that incurs extra cost at every level. Cutting out the extra tiers will cut costs immensely and save money by pure volume. Besides, if there's anything that citizens should be able to rely on their government for, it's health care. Stop pumping your money into the war machinery and corn subsidies. Stop filling your expensive jails with people who smoke a joint. Not saying legalize it, just saying that potheads in jail are a waste of money and bring no value.
What exactly is a "spacelike vacuum"? Is it different from other vacuums? Are there vacuums that are unlike space?
Mens sana in corpore sano, you're saying? I refer you to Stephen Hawking.
Actually, the full quote is "Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano", meaning "You should pray for a sound mind in a sound body".
It is an ideal, not an implication.
... Quite a number of the legendary physics minds of the 1st half of the 20th century enjoyed hiking mountains and/or flirting with the ladies.
We may remember Einstein in his later years as some perfect nerd, but he too liked flirting with the ladies in his earlier years.
So, you're saying that I'm as smart as Einstein, since I like to flirt! Woohoo!!!
Coming from someone who has English as third language, I'd say you're fine without, since all documentation is available in English and most discussion is going on in English. I have actually never used my first or second language for participating in software community discussion. OTOH, these are minor languages with 6-10 million speakers worldwide, all of which learn English in school anyway.
However, among the worlds greater languages, there are certainly a lot of people who can't communicate well in English and there is a lot of discussion in these languages. So I would say, pick one major language that could be useful in all walks of life. Or just pick any language that you are interested in. However, for the sole purpose of participating in the programming community, I don't think time invested will pay off.
There are two crucial reasons for learning a language: necessity and personal motivation. If it isn't necessary for you, you'll have to go with motivation. So, pick a language that you want to learn, because you want to learn it.
Programs from 1998 still run because the language has been stagnant ever since.
You really have don't know anything about Perl, do you? To suggest that Perl has been stagnant from 1998 (v. 5.005) until now (v. 5.16.2) is ridiculuous. The difference is immense. That doesn't mean that backwards compatibility needs to break. You just don't know Perl or its evolution.
Python breaks because it actually improves sometimes. "The main power of Perl has always been its ability to quickly adapt"...seriously? Perl 6 has been stuck in R&D hell for a dozen years now. Even the Duke Nukem Forever team is starting to feel awkward about how long it's taking.
Lessee.... Python 3.0 came out 4 years ago. Still, 2.7 is the one installed by default across the board. Some distros (e.g. latest Red Hat) are still stuck on 2.6. Apparently, most people can do without the improvements in Python 3.0-3.3.
And Perl 6 is another language altogether. Perl 5 will continue to evolve long after the Perl 6 becomes mainstream. I think Larry Wall made a big mistake in using the same name, honestly. But still, you just don't know Perl.
Considering that things like "curfew" and "loitering" ("the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time") are amongst the most commonly prosecuted felonies in the US, just to start with, I don't think it sounds too hyperbolic (e.g. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php). Linger for a few seconds too long on the sidewalk while out to lunch? Sorry, guilty of loitering.
Hyperbole! Please show a case of someone being charged and convicted for loitering after lingering a few seconds! The loitering laws of the US are primarily used to disperse gangs and I'm pretty sure that in most of the cases, the arresting officer has first ordered the suspects to disperse. The SCOTUS has already determined that charging people with "just hanging around" just isn't enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_v._Morales
I'm neither American nor a lawyer and I'm in no way convinced that the US judicial system is particularly good, but it's simply not true that "in America, everyone's a felon, whatever they do". It is hyperbole, BS, FUD and myth.
So the real question here is the following: shall we throw logic out the window to make the masses happy?
"loufoque, meet religion! Religion, meet loufoque!"
WE'RE VERY AWAKE DOWN HERE GUYS!
Just watch out for the sharks with frickin' lasers ON FRICKIN' CAFFEINE!!!
The woman that he is alleged to have raped has tried to drop the case that she was persuaded to bring.
In most of the world, if a woman does not want to bring a case, the suspect has nothing to answer. What he may have done does not seem to have offended her sufficiently for her to want a court case.
Sweden is not the US were the alleged victim can decide to drop charges. It is indeed the public prosecutor's duty to prosecute, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victims. This is useful, eg. in cases of domestic violence where a wife may be prone to dropping the charges, due to coercion, emotions or fear.
However, the fact that there are still no charges, only suspicions, make it very clear that Assange will never be prosecuted. If there were any evidence, he would already have been prosecuted. So the only possibility for a successful prosecution and conviction is his own confession. Can the prosecutor actually expect Assange to confess? He has already been questioned, so it is unthinkable that he's going to change his story in a way that would convict him.
So why demand extradition when there is no possibility of a conviction or even prosecution? Yes, in Assange's shoes I would be afraid. I would be very afraid!
I voted for Clodos...
Installing additional hardware on a computer is most definately a function that SHOULD require administrative priviledges on a computer. Sounds like "working as intended".
Except that connecting your computer to a printer is not installing hardware. Root privileges are only there to protect the integrity of the file system and operating system. If you have physical access to the computer, you already have the possibility of smashing it to smithereens, or compromising the security.
There is no reason why a properly implemented printing system should be potentially harmful to the OS. The most dangerous action of installing a printer is connecting the USB cable, which could potentially fry your computer if the hardware is malicious. Requiring root privileges will not protect you against that. After that, a properly implemented printing system is a greater risk to the printer than the OS. Requiring root privileges actually makes the printing system more potentially harmful than it needs to be. Period.
When commenting the opinions of one of The Giants, always think twice before clicking submit. There's the remote chance that they actually *are* smarter than you, no matter what you think.