I hear you. Now try to remove the black bars and fix the screwed-up aspect ratio. Everything is easy as long as you're not trying to use any of its non-trivial features.
PC-BSD is of course not a linux distro at all. It is FreeBSD plus some desktop GUI oriented packaging.
Gentoo pulls in systemd if you run Gnome.
So if you're right about the others, that leaves 2 linux distros out of how many hundred that are systemd free - FOR NOW. Enjoy the head in the sand approach while you still can. Linux has already been ruined. The revolution got subverted and pwned by the enemy. Systemd has conceptually a very real point. Where it goes off the rails is in being architecturally such a gigantic monolithic shitball, and subsuming all those other d's into its fat belly. There is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever to do so. It's a power play plain and simple.
No human being known to science can use ffmpeg directly. Use handbrake. All handbrake does is figure out the gory details of the options for you and run it through ffmpeg for you.
Eisenhower signed the American-British-Soviet test moratorium in 1958. It was indeed 'a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries', or what intellectually honest people call a treaty. There is no requirement for treaties to have that word in their title. There is no requirement for treaties to not be reciprocal or non-binding. What is a requirement is for a person to be intellectually honest while attempting to prove a point, a pointless point in this case, should they wish to not appear as an asshole.
So, would you like to try again with less weasel word bingo?
OK, nameless coward. Show me the test ban document that was "signed" and ratified in 1958 in the form of a binding bilateral or multilateral treaty or equivalent. You can't, because no such document exists or ever existed.
Read: "October 31, 1958. The United States began a voluntary nuclear test moratorium in hopes that the USSR would agree to do the same. The Soviets resisted at first, completing tests on November 1 and 3, before beginning a self-imposed twelve-month ban."
Read: "On 22 August 1958, the day after the experts had finished their report, Eisenhower announced that the United States would halt nuclear testing for one year if the Soviet Union (and the United Kingdom) would do likewise. To determine whether they would make the moratorium permanent, the three powers agreed to begin test ban negotiations in Geneva on 31 October.... The Geneva test ban negotiations, which lasted from late 1958 through early 1962..."
Read: "As a sign of good faith, Eisenhower proposed a 12-month moratorium on further U.S. nuclear tests. This voluntary ban was to begin on October 31, 1958 - the date for the opening of test ban negotiations... and was conditioned by similar restraint by Moscow.... The Soviets, who had never agreed to the moratorium, fired two more shots on November 1 and 3. [discussion of U.S. restraint in continuing the moratorium anyway] In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union observed a voluntary moratorium for the next 12 months.... on August 26, 1959 Eisenhower extended the one-year moratorium... [and so on]"
Words, and especially terms, have meaning. Making up a "treaty" where none existed is either prevarication or heedless ignorance.
OK, I don't get it either. If somebody is using GPL code and refuses to issue source, it's cut and dried, guilty. But I can't make out whether this is what is going on.
OK, I think I found it - by downloading the clang source, opening the release notes file in the archive, and doing a google search for the exact phrase.
Hope this helps. It's actually great quality work, if they only made it possible to FIND it on the website.
Yeah, somebody please PLEASE track them down. Frankly LLVM itself is boring (don't hit me). The clang part is where the interesting stuff is. Why in hell doesn't somebody fix that miserable horror of a website?
Look at this fucking page. As I write this the title says "Clang 3.5 (In-Progress) Release Notes - Clang 3.6 documentation". The top heading says "Clang 3.6 documentation". The level 2 subheading says "Clang 3.5 (In-Progress) Release Notes". The level 3 heading says "Clang 3.5 (In-Progress) Release Notes". And the virtually empty content clearly relates to day 1 of the development of 3.6. Psst - nobody CARES about 3.6 on the day 3.5 is released. Meanwhile (again, as I write this) there is not a single occurrence of "3.5" on this other page on clang C++ compliance.
I. Kid. You. Not.
I wouldn't ride them this hard, but that page has been borked in that general fashion for months, if not YEARS. I know this documentation stuff is anathema to the guys doing the real programming work, but they should delegate at least ONE guy whose only job is documentation and the website.
It's pretty clear that both the summary and the article are only concerned about mobile Broadwells, and only a very few models at that. But good luck finding that specified anywhere in the verbiage. Myself, I couldn't care less about mobile. For god's sake, throw us a bone about what to expect from Broadwell DESKTOP.
Only and idiot uses an apostrophe to make a verb plural.
First, misusing the apostrophe is a mark of ignorance, not idiocy. Second, ignorance of the fine points of english is not a sensible, polite or even intelligent thing to accuse a writer of, if the writer's native language is perhaps not english.
If you believe there is anything special about the Iraqi M1A1s, you believe in the tooth fairy. Hint, here's how this works. The M1A1 is developed, some of the M1s are sold off and some are upgraded to A1. The M1A2 is developed, some of the A1s are sold off and some are upgraded to A2. There is no mysterious assembly line wasting money building degraded versions of first line battle equipment.
The most the Iraqi stuff is, is a little (insignificantly in the scheme of things) behind the US stuff in the latest improvements. I'll give you that everything we gave the Iraqis is almost certainly abused and badly maintained in their hands, and even more so in ISIS hands.
Yeah, ignore and forget it, so we never learn from history. Not good. First, heads should roll. Second, books should be written to help politicians and West Point to understand their idiocy.
Russia has already threatened Ukraine with nuclear force.
Utter horseshit. Pointing out to rabid anti-Russians the obvious fact that Russia is a nuclear power is not a threat. You could call it a warning. I would personally put it in the category of warning a child not to play with the fires on a stove.
The warning is clearly directed at certain nuts in the US and NATO, not at Ukraine.
prohibition... was repealed to make up for the loss in taxes from the great depression
Horse shit. It was repealed because it didn't work (wholesale violation), it led to an enormous organized crime wave (wholesale illicit trafficking), and the people were sick of the failed social experiment (wholesale disgust).
How is this informative? Please tell us exactly what Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed by Eisenhower. Eisenhower certainly began efforts for such a ban, but he never signed such a treaty. Kennedy did (a limited ban treaty), in 1963.
The Soviets did unilaterally halt their own nuclear testing in 1958, calling on the US and UK to reciprocate. And Eisenhower did then reciprocate. Negotiations toward a treaty began, but that treaty was not signed until 1963. The moratorium collapsed in 1961 on both sides.
THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT ABROGATING A TREATY.
The 1963 treaty was a Limited Nuclear Test Ban. It only banned atmospheric tests. Both sides continued underground tests for a long time. The best information I have is that the US (1992) actually continued a little longer than the USSR (1990).
Slashdot Mirror
Miss, may I help you with that?
I hear you. Now try to remove the black bars and fix the screwed-up aspect ratio. Everything is easy as long as you're not trying to use any of its non-trivial features.
PC-BSD is of course not a linux distro at all. It is FreeBSD plus some desktop GUI oriented packaging.
Gentoo pulls in systemd if you run Gnome.
So if you're right about the others, that leaves 2 linux distros out of how many hundred that are systemd free - FOR NOW. Enjoy the head in the sand approach while you still can. Linux has already been ruined. The revolution got subverted and pwned by the enemy. Systemd has conceptually a very real point. Where it goes off the rails is in being architecturally such a gigantic monolithic shitball, and subsuming all those other d's into its fat belly. There is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever to do so. It's a power play plain and simple.
Why do they need a permissions broker? Because somebody wants to make everyone submit to his personal OCD?
To the people who want to run Gnome3 on BSD: it sucks to have made a stupid choice. Wake up, kick it to hell and use a better DE or WM.
No human being known to science can use ffmpeg directly. Use handbrake. All handbrake does is figure out the gory details of the options for you and run it through ffmpeg for you.
FTFY.
Why the christ doesn't slashdot handle the <strike> or <del> tags?
An excellent point in the main, but AGE? Are you serious?
One of these things is not at all like all the others.
OK, nameless coward. Show me the test ban document that was "signed" and ratified in 1958 in the form of a binding bilateral or multilateral treaty or equivalent. You can't, because no such document exists or ever existed.
Read:
"October 31, 1958. The United States began a voluntary nuclear test moratorium in hopes that the USSR would agree to do the same. The Soviets resisted at first, completing tests on November 1 and 3, before beginning a self-imposed twelve-month ban."
Read: ... The Geneva test ban negotiations, which lasted from late 1958 through early 1962 ..."
"On 22 August 1958, the day after the experts had finished their report, Eisenhower announced that the United States would halt nuclear testing for one year if the Soviet Union (and the United Kingdom) would do likewise. To determine whether they would make the moratorium permanent, the three powers agreed to begin test ban negotiations in Geneva on 31 October.
Read: ... and was conditioned by similar restraint by Moscow. ... The Soviets, who had never agreed to the moratorium, fired two more shots on November 1 and 3. [discussion of U.S. restraint in continuing the moratorium anyway] In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union observed a voluntary moratorium for the next 12 months. ... on August 26, 1959 Eisenhower extended the one-year moratorium ... [and so on]"
"As a sign of good faith, Eisenhower proposed a 12-month moratorium on further U.S. nuclear tests. This voluntary ban was to begin on October 31, 1958 - the date for the opening of test ban negotiations
Words, and especially terms, have meaning. Making up a "treaty" where none existed is either prevarication or heedless ignorance.
Who's the blowhard?
OK, I don't get it either. If somebody is using GPL code and refuses to issue source, it's cut and dried, guilty. But I can't make out whether this is what is going on.
OK, I think I found it - by downloading the clang source, opening the release notes file in the archive, and doing a google search for the exact phrase.
Hope this helps. It's actually great quality work, if they only made it possible to FIND it on the website.
Yeah, somebody please PLEASE track them down. Frankly LLVM itself is boring (don't hit me). The clang part is where the interesting stuff is. Why in hell doesn't somebody fix that miserable horror of a website?
Look at this fucking page. As I write this the title says "Clang 3.5 (In-Progress) Release Notes - Clang 3.6 documentation". The top heading says "Clang 3.6 documentation". The level 2 subheading says "Clang 3.5 (In-Progress) Release Notes". The level 3 heading says "Clang 3.5 (In-Progress) Release Notes". And the virtually empty content clearly relates to day 1 of the development of 3.6. Psst - nobody CARES about 3.6 on the day 3.5 is released. Meanwhile (again, as I write this) there is not a single occurrence of "3.5" on this other page on clang C++ compliance.
I. Kid. You. Not.
I wouldn't ride them this hard, but that page has been borked in that general fashion for months, if not YEARS. I know this documentation stuff is anathema to the guys doing the real programming work, but they should delegate at least ONE guy whose only job is documentation and the website.
It's pretty clear that both the summary and the article are only concerned about mobile Broadwells, and only a very few models at that. But good luck finding that specified anywhere in the verbiage. Myself, I couldn't care less about mobile. For god's sake, throw us a bone about what to expect from Broadwell DESKTOP.
First, misusing the apostrophe is a mark of ignorance, not idiocy. Second, ignorance of the fine points of english is not a sensible, polite or even intelligent thing to accuse a writer of, if the writer's native language is perhaps not english.
What's your excuse for confusing "and" and "an"?
PRETENDING to raise rates less than they otherwise would have.
FTFY.
If you believe there is anything special about the Iraqi M1A1s, you believe in the tooth fairy. Hint, here's how this works. The M1A1 is developed, some of the M1s are sold off and some are upgraded to A1. The M1A2 is developed, some of the A1s are sold off and some are upgraded to A2. There is no mysterious assembly line wasting money building degraded versions of first line battle equipment.
The most the Iraqi stuff is, is a little (insignificantly in the scheme of things) behind the US stuff in the latest improvements. I'll give you that everything we gave the Iraqis is almost certainly abused and badly maintained in their hands, and even more so in ISIS hands.
Yeah, ignore and forget it, so we never learn from history. Not good. First, heads should roll. Second, books should be written to help politicians and West Point to understand their idiocy.
Your servers with the pads will get Pwned so fast it will make your head spin.
I am sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense, but I won't let it stand unchallenged. Rather than duplicate the response, I refer you to it.
I am sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense, but I won't let it stand unchallenged. Rather than duplicate the response, I refer you to it.
Utter horseshit. Pointing out to rabid anti-Russians the obvious fact that Russia is a nuclear power is not a threat. You could call it a warning. I would personally put it in the category of warning a child not to play with the fires on a stove.
The warning is clearly directed at certain nuts in the US and NATO, not at Ukraine.
Horse shit. It was repealed because it didn't work (wholesale violation), it led to an enormous organized crime wave (wholesale illicit trafficking), and the people were sick of the failed social experiment (wholesale disgust).
How is this informative? There was no 1958 treaty. There were reciprocal non-binding actions by the USSR and US.
The Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (atmospheric testing only) was not signed until 1963.
How is this informative? Please tell us exactly what Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed by Eisenhower. Eisenhower certainly began efforts for such a ban, but he never signed such a treaty. Kennedy did (a limited ban treaty), in 1963.
The Soviets did unilaterally halt their own nuclear testing in 1958, calling on the US and UK to reciprocate. And Eisenhower did then reciprocate. Negotiations toward a treaty began, but that treaty was not signed until 1963. The moratorium collapsed in 1961 on both sides.
THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT ABROGATING A TREATY.
The 1963 treaty was a Limited Nuclear Test Ban. It only banned atmospheric tests. Both sides continued underground tests for a long time. The best information I have is that the US (1992) actually continued a little longer than the USSR (1990).
That probably went over his head.