Given that I've been reading the original thread, and I have no connection to anything Linux, nor even registered, you're wrong about it being a private mailing list. It's completely public.
Why would paying somebody to do a job make it more acceptable to reproach him with harsh words?
I didn't say it would. However paychecks explain why people often put up with this sort of abuse from a boss. As Linus isn't paying he should be told to go fuck himself.
I think the point is, Linus would rather the guy not do any work than to continue to produce such garbage code. He would rather make every change himself, than to rely on fellow-programmers who will only make things worse.
There's a term for people with attitudes like this; who express them by public tantrums: A Prima Donna.
No, he screwed up and asked questions to better understand what the problem was, and the reasoning behind the suggested patch. And you say "his staff" - is he paying?
I think that overall safety is better on iOS. But that's not due to WHEN an app asks for privileges. It's the stricter checks before something goes into the store.
That said, in general I agree with you: there is no OS that can protect against gullible users, not even Linux can do that.
That's why it's a good idea to have a walled garden store, where apps are vetted before appearing. And where the few items of malware that get past the vetting can be removed from distribution once identified, thus preventing them affecting any more users.
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
Ah, the old "blame the user" tactic of the fanboy. Well, these are mobile phones. And mobile phones are meant for ordinary people. If they're not suitable for ordinary people, then that's the fault of the hardware/software, not the user.
The fact is that there's a better way to do it, and iOS shows the way. Ask the user for permissions for a resource whilst the app is running, the first time the app wants access to that resource. That way the user can better assess the app, and whether it is a reasonable request.
In iOS6, apps are not allowed to access the contacts database until the user has authorised the app to do so. Unlike Android, the authorization is asked for whilst the app is running, the first time it needs access, not at installation time.
Which means it's a dialog with a single question, about contacts, at the time when you can assess why the app would need it. And thus is far less likely to be affected by click-yes-to-continue-without-actually-reading problem that the Android sandbox has.
3D can be a storytelling device in a documentary. I'm not sure what world you're from where this isn't true.
A documentary often tells a rudimentary story. But the 3D element is useless to that part of it. It's useful for showing images, giving an enhanced effect to them. That is all. And that can swing the balance in favour of using 3D for some documentaries.
For example: a wildlife documentary about mountain lions or eagles would benefit from 3D as you'd get a greater impression of the places they live. A story about the life of a particular animal might be imposed, but the story itself is not helped by the 3D.
A documentary about the cracking of the Enigma Code at Bletchley Heath on the other hand, would by it's nature be mostly story, with people talking either to each other or to the camera, and wouldn't get any benefit from 3D at all.
First of all, the figure I gave for the Interstate System was year 2000 dollars. The system actually being built decades earlier when the costs were lower even in real terms.
and doesn't include maintenance or operating expenses.
Neither does the interstate figure.
And you missed this line from your link: "The CHSRA projects that the system will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."[8]"
Please explain how a nut not bent on murder won't come up with something to do it?
As explained elsewhere, in CHina, the same day as the Adam Lanza massacre, there was a guy went on a rampage with a knife. Stabbed 22 people.
The difference? The gun incident: 28 people dead. The knife incident: zero dead.
There's one other common form of mass murder: bombs. And as a result, explosives are controlled. So should guns be.
Well there you have an example of someone who was legally barred from owning guns entirely, yet he somehow got at least one.
He probably did what Adam Lanza did. Stole his weapon from someone who did own it legally. Yet another reason why it's so stupid to have widespread gun ownership. It makes it really easy for evil or mad people to get hold of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that I've been reading the original thread, and I have no connection to anything Linux, nor even registered, you're wrong about it being a private mailing list. It's completely public.
I would happily put up with that and more just for the credit of being one of the select few who get to work on the kernel.
Hmmm... I always wondered why the popular graphics app for Linux is called Gimp.
Why would paying somebody to do a job make it more acceptable to reproach him with harsh words?
I didn't say it would. However paychecks explain why people often put up with this sort of abuse from a boss. As Linus isn't paying he should be told to go fuck himself.
I think the point is, Linus would rather the guy not do any work than to continue to produce such garbage code. He would rather make every change himself, than to rely on fellow-programmers who will only make things worse.
There's a term for people with attitudes like this; who express them by public tantrums: A Prima Donna.
I defend to the death the right of people to have their anonymous drivel ignored by me.
Linus ain't the boss. He's not paying.
Linus may well have thrown a chair.
No, he screwed up and asked questions to better understand what the problem was, and the reasoning behind the suggested patch. And you say "his staff" - is he paying?
I wish my boss would show the same concern for the quality of our software, and scream at the programmers that break it every day.
Presumably the programmers working for your boss are paid. Why anyone would put up with this shit when Linus isn't paying is beyond me.
I think that overall safety is better on iOS. But that's not due to WHEN an app asks for privileges. It's the stricter checks before something goes into the store.
It's both.
You can repeat yourself, but the other poster has shown that what you are repeating is false.
You're easily trolled. Suggest you raise your sights a bit above -1 rated ACs.
That said, in general I agree with you: there is no OS that can protect against gullible users, not even Linux can do that.
That's why it's a good idea to have a walled garden store, where apps are vetted before appearing. And where the few items of malware that get past the vetting can be removed from distribution once identified, thus preventing them affecting any more users.
The first think someone is going to do when they see a two stores on their phone...is look up why?
No, if the user notices the duplication, and cares, their fist step is likely to be to click on each of them to see what the difference is.
"looking up why" (in Google or the manual) is what people might do after they've looked for themselves.
To repeat myself
You can repeat yourself, but the other poster has shown that what you are repeating is false.
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
Ah, the old "blame the user" tactic of the fanboy. Well, these are mobile phones. And mobile phones are meant for ordinary people. If they're not suitable for ordinary people, then that's the fault of the hardware/software, not the user.
The fact is that there's a better way to do it, and iOS shows the way. Ask the user for permissions for a resource whilst the app is running, the first time the app wants access to that resource. That way the user can better assess the app, and whether it is a reasonable request.
In iOS6, apps are not allowed to access the contacts database until the user has authorised the app to do so. Unlike Android, the authorization is asked for whilst the app is running, the first time it needs access, not at installation time.
Which means it's a dialog with a single question, about contacts, at the time when you can assess why the app would need it. And thus is far less likely to be affected by click-yes-to-continue-without-actually-reading problem that the Android sandbox has.
I never said they were synonymous.
Then what are you arguing about, you fat fucker.
3D can be a storytelling device in a documentary. I'm not sure what world you're from where this isn't true.
A documentary often tells a rudimentary story. But the 3D element is useless to that part of it. It's useful for showing images, giving an enhanced effect to them. That is all. And that can swing the balance in favour of using 3D for some documentaries.
For example: a wildlife documentary about mountain lions or eagles would benefit from 3D as you'd get a greater impression of the places they live. A story about the life of a particular animal might be imposed, but the story itself is not helped by the 3D.
A documentary about the cracking of the Enigma Code at Bletchley Heath on the other hand, would by it's nature be mostly story, with people talking either to each other or to the camera, and wouldn't get any benefit from 3D at all.
The fact that you had to change the form and intention of the sentence proves the words are not anywhere near synonymous.
And if it's become time for insults. Your a moron if you think "add" means the same as "enhance".
That's capitalism for you. Companies that can't afford the cost of doing business go bankrupt to possibly be replaced by new companies that can.
Of course you see it as the fault of regulation, blind to the fact that capitalism cannot function without regulation.
First of all, the figure I gave for the Interstate System was year 2000 dollars. The system actually being built decades earlier when the costs were lower even in real terms.
and doesn't include maintenance or operating expenses.
Neither does the interstate figure.
And you missed this line from your link: "The CHSRA projects that the system will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."[8]"
So it's a wash on construction costs.
Please explain how a nut not bent on murder won't come up with something to do it?
As explained elsewhere, in CHina, the same day as the Adam Lanza massacre, there was a guy went on a rampage with a knife. Stabbed 22 people.
The difference? The gun incident: 28 people dead. The knife incident: zero dead.
There's one other common form of mass murder: bombs. And as a result, explosives are controlled. So should guns be.
Well there you have an example of someone who was legally barred from owning guns entirely, yet he somehow got at least one.
He probably did what Adam Lanza did. Stole his weapon from someone who did own it legally. Yet another reason why it's so stupid to have widespread gun ownership. It makes it really easy for evil or mad people to get hold of them.
The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way.
Wow, that's so dumb.
Automobile and air travel are subsidized with public money to build roads and provide air traffic services (and security).
Not forgetting the biggest subsidising of aircraft: Aviation fuel is tax free. Unlike fuel for road or rail.