This isn't knowledge we're discussing, it's movies and pop music
No, movies and pop music are the excuse. Once you give private entities the right to control what the public can read and watch, do you really think they will stop with movies and pop music?
A symptom of having a society that actually governed by rule of law
The idea behind the rule of law is that the law is codified and impartial, as opposed to rule by individual humans who can make different decisions based on how they feel. Now, take a look at the current US legal system, where the outcome of a court case depends to a large degree on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, whether you make a good impression on the judge, and which judge you happen to appear in front of. Does that really sound like the rule of law to you?
Well, the USA constitution does guarantee the right to due process and a fair trial, as do most modern countries' legal systems. Having ISPs act as vigilantes and enforce the law on behalf of another private entity does not sound like due process to me.
CACert has validation meetings at most conferences. I was originally validated at the UKUUG's Linux 2005 conference. Most people there joined their web of trust, and all went back to their own cities. They also have a booth at FOSDEM, where you get about 4,000 people from all over Europe. You just need a few from each country to start connecting up the individual webs...
Hopefully, when DNSSEC is rolled out, SSL can go away. With DNSSEC, you can be certain that the DNS records that you are receiving are not spoofed. This include A / AAAA records for looking up the host, but it also includes IPSECKEY records. You can then use this data - an IPSEC public key - to establish an end-to-end encrypted connection at the IP layer, below TCP where SSL lives.
This provides the same level of trust that SSL actually provides, i.e. a guarantee that you are talking to the computer that you think you are talking to. It does not provide the level of trust that SSL pretends to provide, i.e. that you are talking to the legal entity that you think you are talking to.
No they're not. Certificates without a verifiable chain of trust are vulnerable to MITM attacks, but that's orthogonal to the question of who signed it. If you go to a site protected by a CACert certificate, then you probably don't have the CACert root installed and are vulnerable to a MITM attack. If you are a corporate user and you had your company's signing certificate added to your work laptop as part of the standard install, then you can securely connect to the corporate Intranet over an untrusted network, using a self-signed certificate, and are not vulnerable to a MITM attack.
No one puts the signing certificates online (doing so gets it pulled from browsers pretty quickly and requires a $100,000 audit to be re-added), so with the existing system the certificate will be revoked immediately after someone has noticed the compromise. This means that your plan, while costing more, would do nothing to reduce the size of the attack window.
Books should be longer, because they make so much less money.
They also cost a lot less to produce. My publisher uses the three-year sales projections to decide whether a book will be popular enough to bother publishing. I think for fiction most use five years instead. That means that, by the end of five years, the publisher has made enough money to cover all of their costs (including the advance to the author, salaries of editors and proofreaders, printing, distribution, and advertising) and made a profit.
Most books have a curve with a sales peak around the second year after publication (when advertising has got the first set of people to read it and then word of mouth got a larger set), and then sales taper off. Irrespective of how successful the book is, about 90% of the profits are going to be made within the first 5 years. The main thing that authors gain from copyright terms longer than 5 years is reduced competition, not direct compensation.
The Democrats winning would hardly be a bad thing.
It would or the Tea Party. I don't think 'you and the Republicans should have separate candidates so that the Democrats can win the election' would actually work.
For future reference, filing bugs in a project with an unrelated entity generally does not achieve anything...
This seems to be a change that Richard introduced in GNUstep while shuffling around the headers. The real fix for it is to stop using the GCC Objective-C runtime (which lacks features, is buggy as hell, requires a huge pile of hacky work-arounds for basic stuff to work, and is not supported by Etoile). That would mean you'd be getting the original version of that header, rather than the version in the compatibility lib. Ideally, also stop using GCC, which is a painfully archaic Objective-C compiler and lacks support for most parts of the language, and is also not supported by Etoile. You can't use blocks if you compile with GCC, which I'm pretty sure means EtoileText won't build.
* LLVM/Clang 2.9 or higher is required to build Etoile
* libobjc2 1.4 (other ObjC runtimes such as the one packaged with GCC won't work)
So, trying to compile it with GCC and using the GCC libobjc is most definitely not something we support. We're a small project, and don't have the time to spend hacking around limitations of badly designed compilers.
note: because China's exchange rate is determine by fiat, rather than by market forces, the official exchange rate measure of GDP is not an accurate measure of China's output; GDP at the official exchange rate substantially understates the actual level of China's output vis-a-vis the rest of the world; in China's situation, GDP at purchasing power parity provides the best measure for comparing output across countries (2010 est.)
And when you look at that number you find that it's...
I've read over a dozen posts in this topic by you, and every single one has contained massive factual errors that are trivial to contradict with ten seconds and a search engine. How do you get to hold such strong opinions based entirely on wilful ignorance?
Obamacare alone is estimated to have a price tag of $2 trillion.
Once again, wikipedia disputes that, citing a source that says it will cost $143 billion[81] over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade. So, not only is two trillion too much, you're talking a figure spread over two decades. Even if it were two trillion, that would be $100bn/year.
So, out of interest, why are the UK, France and Germany still rated AAA, when they have more regulation, stronger unions, and higher taxes (unless you count medical insurance under the heading of tax)?
There's an old saying, that for every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious, and wrong. Your post just brought that into my mind for some reason. A brief look history to see what happens when governments cut spending in a recession will tell you why.
Which is quite a lot when you're comparing the dollar against currencies that are also experiencing high inflation. In real terms, the spending power of the dollar has dropped a lot more. I would suggest that you compare it to commodities, but the fact that the USA has deregulated commodities speculation means that commodity prices are now a bit insane so they make the dollar look worse than it should.
Nope, the USA was days away from not paying social security cheques. Defaulting was never likely. And after a few senators had been lynched by the people no longer receiving social security, raising the debt ceiling was inevitable too.
Yup, it works fine, until it doesn't. One of my friends used incorrect details on Facebook for a couple of years. Then one of their automated systems noticed and he was summarily banned. Not a problem for him - he didn't use Facebook much - but for someone who had a lot of contacts that they only communicated with via Facebook then it would be a problem.
I got so irritated by things doing that that I just redirected facebook.com to 0.0.0.0. Now, when I click on a link like that I don't even see the facebook page, I just get an error. Anyone trying to sell me stuff and using facebook instead of a real web page immediately loses a potential customer, and I don't give Facebook my IP to associate with 'people interested in product or service X' to use when providing advertising.
Why? Michael Kristopeit showed that just having a real name (not necessarily yours - no one has actually verified that he's the person he claims to be) next to your posts doesn't stop you from behaving like an asshat. The question is one of reputation, not of identity. Slashdot tracks reputation, so users like slashpot (who post 'I have a {topic at hand} in my pants' in every story) have bad karma and most users can ignore their posts. The limitation here is that it's tied to username, so MichaelKristopeit405 and MichaelKristopeit406 have different reputations in the automatic system, in spite of being the same idiot.
If you set a new user modifier and a bad karma modifier then you'll never see his posts, because he'll start off with a penalty and then get a different penalty after trolling a bit. The hard problem is working out what these should be. You need some people to see posts by new accounts, so that they can gain a reputation, but you also need the initial reputation to be quite bad so that people can't just discard an old trolling account and create one with a spotless reputation. That's the idea behind Slashdot's good karma bonus - if you've been around for a while and not spent all of that time trolling, then you get to post at +2. The system works pretty well. Slashdot has the highest interesting post to deranged rambling / troll ratio of any online forum I've seen.
Object orientation, according to the person who invented the term, means decomposing your program into subprograms that are simple models of (special purpose) computers, which communicate by passing messages. These simple models of computers are called objects. None of them needs to know anything about the implementation details of the others, just what messages it will respond to. In most implementations, message sending is implemented in terms of function calling (although in some, like Actor Smalltalk, it's a asynchronous).
Cargo cult object orientation is when you get obsessed by ideas like inheritance and polymorphism that happen to be implementation details of some OO languages.
Why do you blame Obama for not following a line of action that probably wouln't have worked
Obama said he'd stop paying social security before he'd default on the debt. This was then spun as him saying he'd rather give money to bankers than to the poor. He should have played up the 14th amendment, saying that he'd rather pay the social security but he respects the constitution, and the constitution requires the US to meet its debt obligations even at the cost of hardship. This would have won him some support from the constitutionalist branch of the republican support base.
I don't know what happened to Obama when he got elected, but all of the PR skill he demonstrated in the primaries seems to have evaporated.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't knowledge we're discussing, it's movies and pop music
No, movies and pop music are the excuse. Once you give private entities the right to control what the public can read and watch, do you really think they will stop with movies and pop music?
A symptom of having a society that actually governed by rule of law
The idea behind the rule of law is that the law is codified and impartial, as opposed to rule by individual humans who can make different decisions based on how they feel. Now, take a look at the current US legal system, where the outcome of a court case depends to a large degree on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, whether you make a good impression on the judge, and which judge you happen to appear in front of. Does that really sound like the rule of law to you?
Well, the USA constitution does guarantee the right to due process and a fair trial, as do most modern countries' legal systems. Having ISPs act as vigilantes and enforce the law on behalf of another private entity does not sound like due process to me.
CACert has validation meetings at most conferences. I was originally validated at the UKUUG's Linux 2005 conference. Most people there joined their web of trust, and all went back to their own cities. They also have a booth at FOSDEM, where you get about 4,000 people from all over Europe. You just need a few from each country to start connecting up the individual webs...
Hopefully, when DNSSEC is rolled out, SSL can go away. With DNSSEC, you can be certain that the DNS records that you are receiving are not spoofed. This include A / AAAA records for looking up the host, but it also includes IPSECKEY records. You can then use this data - an IPSEC public key - to establish an end-to-end encrypted connection at the IP layer, below TCP where SSL lives.
This provides the same level of trust that SSL actually provides, i.e. a guarantee that you are talking to the computer that you think you are talking to. It does not provide the level of trust that SSL pretends to provide, i.e. that you are talking to the legal entity that you think you are talking to.
No they're not. Certificates without a verifiable chain of trust are vulnerable to MITM attacks, but that's orthogonal to the question of who signed it. If you go to a site protected by a CACert certificate, then you probably don't have the CACert root installed and are vulnerable to a MITM attack. If you are a corporate user and you had your company's signing certificate added to your work laptop as part of the standard install, then you can securely connect to the corporate Intranet over an untrusted network, using a self-signed certificate, and are not vulnerable to a MITM attack.
No one puts the signing certificates online (doing so gets it pulled from browsers pretty quickly and requires a $100,000 audit to be re-added), so with the existing system the certificate will be revoked immediately after someone has noticed the compromise. This means that your plan, while costing more, would do nothing to reduce the size of the attack window.
Books should be longer, because they make so much less money.
They also cost a lot less to produce. My publisher uses the three-year sales projections to decide whether a book will be popular enough to bother publishing. I think for fiction most use five years instead. That means that, by the end of five years, the publisher has made enough money to cover all of their costs (including the advance to the author, salaries of editors and proofreaders, printing, distribution, and advertising) and made a profit.
Most books have a curve with a sales peak around the second year after publication (when advertising has got the first set of people to read it and then word of mouth got a larger set), and then sales taper off. Irrespective of how successful the book is, about 90% of the profits are going to be made within the first 5 years. The main thing that authors gain from copyright terms longer than 5 years is reduced competition, not direct compensation.
The Democrats winning would hardly be a bad thing.
It would or the Tea Party. I don't think 'you and the Republicans should have separate candidates so that the Democrats can win the election' would actually work.
For future reference, filing bugs in a project with an unrelated entity generally does not achieve anything...
This seems to be a change that Richard introduced in GNUstep while shuffling around the headers. The real fix for it is to stop using the GCC Objective-C runtime (which lacks features, is buggy as hell, requires a huge pile of hacky work-arounds for basic stuff to work, and is not supported by Etoile). That would mean you'd be getting the original version of that header, rather than the version in the compatibility lib. Ideally, also stop using GCC, which is a painfully archaic Objective-C compiler and lacks support for most parts of the language, and is also not supported by Etoile. You can't use blocks if you compile with GCC, which I'm pretty sure means EtoileText won't build.
Of you'd read the INSTALL file then you'd have seen this:
* LLVM/Clang 2.9 or higher is required to build Etoile
* libobjc2 1.4 (other ObjC runtimes such as the one packaged with GCC won't work)
So, trying to compile it with GCC and using the GCC libobjc is most definitely not something we support. We're a small project, and don't have the time to spend hacking around limitations of badly designed compilers.
note: because China's exchange rate is determine by fiat, rather than by market forces, the official exchange rate measure of GDP is not an accurate measure of China's output; GDP at the official exchange rate substantially understates the actual level of China's output vis-a-vis the rest of the world; in China's situation, GDP at purchasing power parity provides the best measure for comparing output across countries (2010 est.)
And when you look at that number you find that it's...
$10.09 trillion (2010 est.)
And if we follow the country comparisons link next to that number, we find the figures that the grandparent cited. Although, for some reason, he left off India at $4.3T$.
So, you've demonstrated that you're not even capable of reading sources that you cite. Hardly a compelling demonstration of your credibility...
I've read over a dozen posts in this topic by you, and every single one has contained massive factual errors that are trivial to contradict with ten seconds and a search engine. How do you get to hold such strong opinions based entirely on wilful ignorance?
Actually the cost of the 2 wars combined is about $1.1 trillion
Really, because Wikipedia cites a source saying that the cost is somewhere between $2.4bn and $3bn
Obamacare alone is estimated to have a price tag of $2 trillion.
Once again, wikipedia disputes that, citing a source that says it will cost $143 billion[81] over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade. So, not only is two trillion too much, you're talking a figure spread over two decades. Even if it were two trillion, that would be $100bn/year.
So, out of interest, why are the UK, France and Germany still rated AAA, when they have more regulation, stronger unions, and higher taxes (unless you count medical insurance under the heading of tax)?
There's an old saying, that for every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious, and wrong. Your post just brought that into my mind for some reason. A brief look history to see what happens when governments cut spending in a recession will tell you why.
That's 3.4% a year
Which is quite a lot when you're comparing the dollar against currencies that are also experiencing high inflation. In real terms, the spending power of the dollar has dropped a lot more. I would suggest that you compare it to commodities, but the fact that the USA has deregulated commodities speculation means that commodity prices are now a bit insane so they make the dollar look worse than it should.
the president is half from a race which is clueless about money
So, he's half human, what's the other half?
The US was days away from default
Nope, the USA was days away from not paying social security cheques. Defaulting was never likely. And after a few senators had been lynched by the people no longer receiving social security, raising the debt ceiling was inevitable too.
Are gays using their gayification beams on Congress to force them to spend money?
I have no evidence either way, but I now choose to believe that because it's an awesome mental image.
And drug dealers. Around here, payphones are mostly removed when residents complain that they're being used to deal drugs.
Yup, it works fine, until it doesn't. One of my friends used incorrect details on Facebook for a couple of years. Then one of their automated systems noticed and he was summarily banned. Not a problem for him - he didn't use Facebook much - but for someone who had a lot of contacts that they only communicated with via Facebook then it would be a problem.
I got so irritated by things doing that that I just redirected facebook.com to 0.0.0.0. Now, when I click on a link like that I don't even see the facebook page, I just get an error. Anyone trying to sell me stuff and using facebook instead of a real web page immediately loses a potential customer, and I don't give Facebook my IP to associate with 'people interested in product or service X' to use when providing advertising.
Why? Michael Kristopeit showed that just having a real name (not necessarily yours - no one has actually verified that he's the person he claims to be) next to your posts doesn't stop you from behaving like an asshat. The question is one of reputation, not of identity. Slashdot tracks reputation, so users like slashpot (who post 'I have a {topic at hand} in my pants' in every story) have bad karma and most users can ignore their posts. The limitation here is that it's tied to username, so MichaelKristopeit405 and MichaelKristopeit406 have different reputations in the automatic system, in spite of being the same idiot.
If you set a new user modifier and a bad karma modifier then you'll never see his posts, because he'll start off with a penalty and then get a different penalty after trolling a bit. The hard problem is working out what these should be. You need some people to see posts by new accounts, so that they can gain a reputation, but you also need the initial reputation to be quite bad so that people can't just discard an old trolling account and create one with a spotless reputation. That's the idea behind Slashdot's good karma bonus - if you've been around for a while and not spent all of that time trolling, then you get to post at +2. The system works pretty well. Slashdot has the highest interesting post to deranged rambling / troll ratio of any online forum I've seen.
Object orientation, according to the person who invented the term, means decomposing your program into subprograms that are simple models of (special purpose) computers, which communicate by passing messages. These simple models of computers are called objects. None of them needs to know anything about the implementation details of the others, just what messages it will respond to. In most implementations, message sending is implemented in terms of function calling (although in some, like Actor Smalltalk, it's a asynchronous).
Cargo cult object orientation is when you get obsessed by ideas like inheritance and polymorphism that happen to be implementation details of some OO languages.
Why do you blame Obama for not following a line of action that probably wouln't have worked
Obama said he'd stop paying social security before he'd default on the debt. This was then spun as him saying he'd rather give money to bankers than to the poor. He should have played up the 14th amendment, saying that he'd rather pay the social security but he respects the constitution, and the constitution requires the US to meet its debt obligations even at the cost of hardship. This would have won him some support from the constitutionalist branch of the republican support base.
I don't know what happened to Obama when he got elected, but all of the PR skill he demonstrated in the primaries seems to have evaporated.