Probably, though I'm pretty sure that removing memory will be a lot harder than adding it.
Really? That's not my interpretation at all.
If a specific set of neurons in the hippocampus are involved in remembering a given memory, and you have the technology to identify them -- kill or reset (with a targeted injection of neurochemicals) those neurons, and there you go; *much* easier than the detail work involved in artificially creating a new memory... and if you happen to wipe some other memories while you're in there, oh well, too bad.
A supermarket checkout employee could easily undercharge a friend. Friend comes with 3 _popular_ items, but only pays for 1. Sure at the end of the day during stock take you know it's missing, but unless you have store cameras are pointed at your employees and you can countercheck them with the daily records, it's going to be hard. Note to owners if you can do that then the tax people might be able to look at your videos too;).
Granted, but that's a popular enough scam that anyone concerned with employee shrinkage will typically already look for it. (As for the tax authority monitoring those same records -- if you make a policy of rotating them out after a week, that's not such a concern). The zapper approach is different for its novelty, meaning that owners who've "been around the block" but aren't entirely up on their technology might miss it.
while I agree the country would have it's fair share of racists, there would be other reasons to be proud to fly a confederate flag, when the southern states economy was being sacrificed for the northerns piece of mind, they chose to secede. Basically a 'fuck you for not looking after us too', which is similar to what USA did to the english some time earlier,
...and then, post-secession, the Confederacy trampled all over the same states' rights it claimed that the secession was all about up-front.
My reference material is all at home, or I could provide citations here -- but prior to later (early-1900s) revisionism of its teaching in American textbooks (and certainly in its immediate aftermath), the Civil War was well understood to have had the issue of slavery at its heart.
That's useless, if there are 5 distros you want to support, and each one has 3 versions in common use (pretty conservative estimate) then that's 15 different builds of your program you need to produce, test and distribute. This is completely absurd and is one of the major reasons only the truly dedicated try to distribute binary software on Linux.
15 different builds? That is, indeed, completely absurd... if it were actually the case in practice.
Those who are not "truly dedicated", as you put it, generally target only the two most recent releases of the "big two" enterprise distros, and simply require their customers to upgrade (or pay for the process to certify the product against a different target, should those customers be disinclined and have the cash). Since that's where all the business customers are -- and thus where the money is -- it works out just fine. Perhaps folks will start targeting Ubuntu LTS releases as well for commercial software; what all these distributions have in common is that they're supported for long periods and have relatively slow release cycles (as opposed to consumer-desktop distributions), so the work involved in QAing a target platform is significantly less.
Moreover, distributions have made a practice of offering -compat packages implementing the ABIs of widespread enterprise distro releases; as such, packages built against an enterprise distribution (itself with long-term support) can additionally be used on future versions of that distribution or derivatives offering such packages. Even further, LSB standardization on things like init script behavior and return codes allows still more compatibility between distributions and releases. It's really not the problem that you make it out to be.
To illustrate my point -- Oracle and JRockit's binary packages run perfectly well on Gentoo; I repackaged both for my last employer. (Using Gentoo was a massive mistake, but let's not go into that here). Both of these are massive, binary-only packages which -- particularly in Oracle's case -- interact closely with the OS they run on. They're portable.[*] When I say this problem is much ado about relatively minor issues, I say this with significant experience (my job before last was with a Linux distributor), and with quite a bit of certainty in my conclusions. To be sure, that kind of compatibility isn't something that comes free -- it requires work on the parts of both the distributor and the ISV -- but that work is being done, and the result is such that Enterprise Linux distributions, by and large, tend to be binary compatible with each other, such that only minor efforts are needed to smooth over the differences.
If you're in the Austin area, drop me an email -- I'd rather argue this one over a beer (or some nuclear tacos).
[*] - Oracle RAC is kind of a PITA anywhere it isn't certified for due to issues with the OCFS kernel module -- but then, RAC is a PITA in places it is certified for, too.
That's a ridiculous stance. By that stance, every retailer is responsible for every defect in the manufacturer's product, no matter what it may be. If I buy a new microwave from Wal-Mart, and it's nicked? Their fault!
That's exactly right. If I find that the new microwave I bought from Wal-Mart is damaged, I take it back to Wal-Mart, and they have a contract with the manufacturer determining what they do from there (ship it back, remove a key part and ship only that back and destroy the rest, just destroy the whole thing, etc)
This obviously isn't the case. It's what we have warranties for. If the product is faulty, that's a beef you need to take up with the manufacturer, not the retailer. If you want the retailer to fix the manufacturer's screw-up, there's no reasonable cause for it to be free. It wasn't the retailer who fucked it up, he shouldn't have to fix it gratis. If you want it fixed gratis, take it to the manufacturer.
Having a manufacturer's warranty in additional to the retailer's immediate responsibility is a nice-to-have -- it provides a longer term of protection, after all -- but absolving the retailer of all responsibility is silly; that would lead retailers to be able to sell product they know is damaged without consequence.
No they don't support it. I've had many, many conversations with distributors over the years about this topic. It "works" simply because of the way the tools are constructed. But they provide absolutely no guarantees that your app won't break tomorrow with some update they push, and are completely unwilling to make any such guarantees.
That's not true. Distributions guarantee that they will support certain standards in terms of having a minimum number of common dependencies installed in specific locations -- see the LSB -- and enterprise distributions guarantee binary compatibility between libraries in point releases and upgrades. As such, 3rd-party packagers who rely on these guarantees are indeed safe -- any any breakage caused would be accepted by the distributor as a bug. Keep in mind: Enterprise Linux distributions are intended to be used with 3rd-party software, both internal to the customer and sold by commercial vendors. Breaking binary compatibility wantonly is in nobody's best interests.
Finally, enterprise vendors doguarantee a stable ABI for the life of their product; that's part of why you buy (or use a derivative of) an enterprise distribution.
The design (code design, not web design) is beautiful, and the only meritous complaints I've heard regard multi-project support and integration with non-SVN revision control systems (which I use -- I'm a big fan of bzr for my personal projects, and the group I'm in at work uses git). Given that both of these concerns were getting serious attention (and the latter was pretty much solved if you were willing to use 3rd-party plugins) last time I set up a Trac instance (well over a year ago), I'm skeptical that folks' concerns over Trac as it exists today aren't simply vestiges of valid complaints of Trac as it existed a few years ago.
No, it isn't appalling at all. Best Buy didn't put the crapware on, why should they take it off for free?
How does that matter? I'm a consumer. I buy a PC. What had to happen to get that PC built and delivered to me is irrelevant; I only care that the party with whom I'm directly interacting delivers to me what I paid them for. If in the course of building and delivering what I pay them for someone gets paid to put something on and someone else gets paid to take that same thing off, that's waste -- wasted effort, wasted money, wasted time -- and a better optimized model would skip that process altogether.
Hey -- we didn't arrange our schedules that way on purpose; it just happened as a happy accident. Likewise, I mess with Asterisk first and foremost because I think it's fun, and only secondarily because I dislike phone spam. (We did decide to do the large-dog thing as a security measure, but that was for late-night walks outside, not protection of the household proper -- and any weaponry we may have usable for home defense would have been purchased primary for recreational hunting; that said, I don't disclose the presence or lack of such online). I don't put myself through a whole bunch of hassle because I'm paranoid about security, and I'd probably still decide to be as easily identifiable online as I am had things not worked out that way, on account of the benefits I gave earlier (ability to translate online reputation-building into real-life interactions, which I really do think is a serious and compelling advantage)... that said, when it comes down to defending my decision, the set of happy accidents comes in handy.
I agree with you that paranoia is contrary to happiness -- that's part of why I'm comfortable with having my identity online; if I had to live in a mental state such that I believed people as a whole to be an irresponsible set (or such irresponsible people to be numerous enough to be worth thinking about), that mode of thought would, in and of itself, make me less happy.
Your guesses regarding what I think are inaccurate: my idea of a fun weekend is updating the rules for my asterisk server used to filter phone spam.
To be sure, I don't particularly want to deal with cleaning up my credit report after some asshat decided to steal my identity in return for asking him to clean up his language in a public IRC channel... but hey, them's the risks with being out on the Internet these days, and (as before) I don't interact with those people enough to be a particularly likely target. (Also, my wife is a legal geek; as such, we're better prepared for effective self-representation than most, making getting that worthless civil judgment an easier process than it would be otherwise).
If we get physical vandalism... well, that depends on the time and circumstances. Malicious mischief after dark is a shooting offense here, though, making it riskier to attempt and thus less likely -- and we have dogs who tend to be defensive of their property and its owners, and adult family members with work schedules that rotate such that at least one person is home at almost all times (and able to respond if the dogs indicate trouble); as such I'm not exceptionally worried on that account.
Someone who was serious could get into public records and get my address anyhow (owning a house generates lots of public records). Someone who isn't serious presumably doesn't pose a threat. I think the worst thing that's actually likely to happen is 4chan-style harassment, and (1) it's not particularly likely, as I don't hang around those types enough for them to care about me, and (2) if it did happen, countermeasures are certainly available. And, again, (3) if anyone were serious enough about it, they could find all the relevant information through other channels anyhow.
Being nymous online is a Good Thing -- it means people I know IRL can recognize me (I've run into ex-coworkers and old friends I didn't think I'd see again) and it gives me a chance to build a reputation that follows me into Real Life (so potential employers find plenty to recommend me when googling my name). Further, it acts counter to the tendency for anonymous communication to degrade into... well, you're on slashdot; you know exactly what I'm talking about.:)
Look, I paid for a Nissan Rogue. I like my Rogue. But if, for example, I felt like my penis was not quite large enough, I still don't have the right to roll into a Nissan dealership and roll off with a Nissan Xtera.
I don't know Nissan's product line, so I don't know whether your comparison is apt or not, BUT --
If someone forces me to buy ${EXPENSIVE_PRODUCT_A} as part of a bundle, and I don't want it -- instead I want ${CHEAP_PRODUCT_B}, I'm not going to feel the least bit in the wrong for forcefully trading the ${EXPENSIVE_PRODUCT_A} I was saddled with for a ${CHEAP_PRODUCT_B}.
Legally wrong? Sure. Morally wrong? In the case of software -- where they don't need to manufacture or ship ship physical objects, or otherwise incur costs, on account of my action -- I'm going to take a "no".
That raises a good point. If these binoculars have a one second refresh rate, how does it compensate for the natural shaking of your hand? Will soldiers have to carry a tripod with them?
I read it as indicating that every second a new composite image would be ready, built from data collected within the second prior. Compared to the new ground being broken here, stabilizing the group of images received within that window is child's play.
How do you drop "capabilities to remount read-write"? What does this mean? Will you never be able to update your root filesystem again?
google linux capabilities
Will you never be able to update your root filesystem again?
Not without a reboot.
I would use a VPN, but many public places offering wireless internet block all outgoing ports except tcp 80 and 443, so I have to run ssh servers on these.
OpenVPN supports sharing a port with a more conventional SSL server in TCP mode.
If you don't accept SSH connections that aren't coming over your trusted, separately-keyed VPN, for instance, this is pretty moot.
If you've disabled loadable modules, remounted your root filesystem read-only and dropped capabilities to remount read-write (and otherwise hardened against rootkits), this can be pretty moot on that account too.
If you aren't doing those things, maybe you should think about it.
I have to, also, but not because of anyone's name. The problem is that he chose a corrupt long-time senator, which cancels out Obama's advantage over corrupt long-time senator McCain (unless McCain also chooses a corrupt senator as his running mate).
I'm assuming you consider "corrupt long-time senator" to be synonymous with "long-time senator", and running from there; otherwise, you'd be expected to actually come up with some backing for your assertions. (Biden may have been around for a while, but he's no Ted Stevens).
Don't you mean, unless McCain chooses someone perceived as fresh and new? Otherwise, you've got plank with a fresh face and one old face, and another plank with two old faces... and that's assuming that President and VP are given equal weighting, which obviously isn't the case.
Sure -- but unlike the case you reference, the claim is actually defensible here. When I write a test suite, it's not meant for consumption by folks who aren't developers. When someone builds as OS optimized for ideological purity, it's targeted only at the subset of the population actually interested in the FSF's ideology -- an ideology which certainly includes a meme or three about marketing.
It is also an easy place to start, should you wish to create your own distribution. The are a large number of major corporations and government departments, that could create their own in house distribution, so this provides them a clean functional distribution that will be continually updated as a place to start.
Been there, done that. In such an environment, one generally wants support for some amount of proprietary software -- be it Oracle or JRockit or Splunk or something completely different. One also wants a base with long-term support (such as CentOS or an Ubuntu LTS release). GNewSense doesn't fit the bill.
Also if your are into low cost appliance styled computers, this provides a easy to add onto distribution to suit your particular appliance, be it a home broadband modem/router/switch/family server or a smart phone/PDA or a budget UMPC or a TV with pretensions of being a computer/server. It would certainly serve a lot of compatibility issues.
Ehh, no. Building something like that, even glibc can be too heavy. Notice my mention of specialized embedded distros? They exist for a reason; desktop distros are not a good starting place.
Why not ? Whatever the goals, it's only going to be helped by sensible and clever marketing (e.g. Firefox). It's not hard to see that names like GNewSense/nuisance or GIMP could make people feel embarassed about recommending the product to their boss regardless of its other virtues, and that can't be helping their cause at all.
Again: Why would you want to recommend it to your boss, given its mission and purpose? You (and your boss) aren't the target market.
The name helps keep people who would be disappointed by the product away. It's a feature!:)
Bad name, no "wow" factor (like OS X or even Ubuntu (Windows has no "wow" to it IMO, it has a bureaucratic feel to it)), it appears to have no marketing (why do this if you're not actively bringing it to people? And don't give me the "diversity" speech, a scaled down version of ubuntu, of which there are already too many to count, does nothing to increase diversity (again IMO; stating an opinion; could be, and likely is, wrong; etc))
I see no pros, only cons, someone enlighten me
Test suites typically have only bad names, or no names at all; nobody ever puts marketing resources into them; and why would you ever build something not meant for end-user consumption?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? That's not my interpretation at all.
If a specific set of neurons in the hippocampus are involved in remembering a given memory, and you have the technology to identify them -- kill or reset (with a targeted injection of neurochemicals) those neurons, and there you go; *much* easier than the detail work involved in artificially creating a new memory... and if you happen to wipe some other memories while you're in there, oh well, too bad.
You do realize just how completely you missed the point, yes?
If they obey the law, they aren't terrorists; it's a spin on the old Randism that the state has no power against an honest man.
Granted, but that's a popular enough scam that anyone concerned with employee shrinkage will typically already look for it. (As for the tax authority monitoring those same records -- if you make a policy of rotating them out after a week, that's not such a concern). The zapper approach is different for its novelty, meaning that owners who've "been around the block" but aren't entirely up on their technology might miss it.
Yes, but the point the parent was making is that an unscrupulous EMPLOYEE could install a zapper to steal from the owner; it works both ways.
TFA specified WebKit.
My reference material is all at home, or I could provide citations here -- but prior to later (early-1900s) revisionism of its teaching in American textbooks (and certainly in its immediate aftermath), the Civil War was well understood to have had the issue of slavery at its heart.
15 different builds? That is, indeed, completely absurd... if it were actually the case in practice.
Those who are not "truly dedicated", as you put it, generally target only the two most recent releases of the "big two" enterprise distros, and simply require their customers to upgrade (or pay for the process to certify the product against a different target, should those customers be disinclined and have the cash). Since that's where all the business customers are -- and thus where the money is -- it works out just fine. Perhaps folks will start targeting Ubuntu LTS releases as well for commercial software; what all these distributions have in common is that they're supported for long periods and have relatively slow release cycles (as opposed to consumer-desktop distributions), so the work involved in QAing a target platform is significantly less.
Moreover, distributions have made a practice of offering -compat packages implementing the ABIs of widespread enterprise distro releases; as such, packages built against an enterprise distribution (itself with long-term support) can additionally be used on future versions of that distribution or derivatives offering such packages. Even further, LSB standardization on things like init script behavior and return codes allows still more compatibility between distributions and releases. It's really not the problem that you make it out to be.
To illustrate my point -- Oracle and JRockit's binary packages run perfectly well on Gentoo; I repackaged both for my last employer. (Using Gentoo was a massive mistake, but let's not go into that here). Both of these are massive, binary-only packages which -- particularly in Oracle's case -- interact closely with the OS they run on. They're portable.[*] When I say this problem is much ado about relatively minor issues, I say this with significant experience (my job before last was with a Linux distributor), and with quite a bit of certainty in my conclusions. To be sure, that kind of compatibility isn't something that comes free -- it requires work on the parts of both the distributor and the ISV -- but that work is being done, and the result is such that Enterprise Linux distributions, by and large, tend to be binary compatible with each other, such that only minor efforts are needed to smooth over the differences.
If you're in the Austin area, drop me an email -- I'd rather argue this one over a beer (or some nuclear tacos).
[*] - Oracle RAC is kind of a PITA anywhere it isn't certified for due to issues with the OCFS kernel module -- but then, RAC is a PITA in places it is certified for, too.
That's exactly right. If I find that the new microwave I bought from Wal-Mart is damaged, I take it back to Wal-Mart, and they have a contract with the manufacturer determining what they do from there (ship it back, remove a key part and ship only that back and destroy the rest, just destroy the whole thing, etc)
Having a manufacturer's warranty in additional to the retailer's immediate responsibility is a nice-to-have -- it provides a longer term of protection, after all -- but absolving the retailer of all responsibility is silly; that would lead retailers to be able to sell product they know is damaged without consequence.
That's not true. Distributions guarantee that they will support certain standards in terms of having a minimum number of common dependencies installed in specific locations -- see the LSB -- and enterprise distributions guarantee binary compatibility between libraries in point releases and upgrades. As such, 3rd-party packagers who rely on these guarantees are indeed safe -- any any breakage caused would be accepted by the distributor as a bug. Keep in mind: Enterprise Linux distributions are intended to be used with 3rd-party software, both internal to the customer and sold by commercial vendors. Breaking binary compatibility wantonly is in nobody's best interests.
Finally, enterprise vendors do guarantee a stable ABI for the life of their product; that's part of why you buy (or use a derivative of) an enterprise distribution.
Hey... what's so bad about trac?
The design (code design, not web design) is beautiful, and the only meritous complaints I've heard regard multi-project support and integration with non-SVN revision control systems (which I use -- I'm a big fan of bzr for my personal projects, and the group I'm in at work uses git). Given that both of these concerns were getting serious attention (and the latter was pretty much solved if you were willing to use 3rd-party plugins) last time I set up a Trac instance (well over a year ago), I'm skeptical that folks' concerns over Trac as it exists today aren't simply vestiges of valid complaints of Trac as it existed a few years ago.
How does that matter? I'm a consumer. I buy a PC. What had to happen to get that PC built and delivered to me is irrelevant; I only care that the party with whom I'm directly interacting delivers to me what I paid them for. If in the course of building and delivering what I pay them for someone gets paid to put something on and someone else gets paid to take that same thing off, that's waste -- wasted effort, wasted money, wasted time -- and a better optimized model would skip that process altogether.
In the context of the thread leading up to my comment, A is Vista, B is XP.
Hey -- we didn't arrange our schedules that way on purpose; it just happened as a happy accident. Likewise, I mess with Asterisk first and foremost because I think it's fun, and only secondarily because I dislike phone spam. (We did decide to do the large-dog thing as a security measure, but that was for late-night walks outside, not protection of the household proper -- and any weaponry we may have usable for home defense would have been purchased primary for recreational hunting; that said, I don't disclose the presence or lack of such online). I don't put myself through a whole bunch of hassle because I'm paranoid about security, and I'd probably still decide to be as easily identifiable online as I am had things not worked out that way, on account of the benefits I gave earlier (ability to translate online reputation-building into real-life interactions, which I really do think is a serious and compelling advantage)... that said, when it comes down to defending my decision, the set of happy accidents comes in handy.
I agree with you that paranoia is contrary to happiness -- that's part of why I'm comfortable with having my identity online; if I had to live in a mental state such that I believed people as a whole to be an irresponsible set (or such irresponsible people to be numerous enough to be worth thinking about), that mode of thought would, in and of itself, make me less happy.
Your guesses regarding what I think are inaccurate: my idea of a fun weekend is updating the rules for my asterisk server used to filter phone spam.
To be sure, I don't particularly want to deal with cleaning up my credit report after some asshat decided to steal my identity in return for asking him to clean up his language in a public IRC channel... but hey, them's the risks with being out on the Internet these days, and (as before) I don't interact with those people enough to be a particularly likely target. (Also, my wife is a legal geek; as such, we're better prepared for effective self-representation than most, making getting that worthless civil judgment an easier process than it would be otherwise).
If we get physical vandalism... well, that depends on the time and circumstances. Malicious mischief after dark is a shooting offense here, though, making it riskier to attempt and thus less likely -- and we have dogs who tend to be defensive of their property and its owners, and adult family members with work schedules that rotate such that at least one person is home at almost all times (and able to respond if the dogs indicate trouble); as such I'm not exceptionally worried on that account.
So why bother?
Someone who was serious could get into public records and get my address anyhow (owning a house generates lots of public records). Someone who isn't serious presumably doesn't pose a threat. I think the worst thing that's actually likely to happen is 4chan-style harassment, and (1) it's not particularly likely, as I don't hang around those types enough for them to care about me, and (2) if it did happen, countermeasures are certainly available. And, again, (3) if anyone were serious enough about it, they could find all the relevant information through other channels anyhow.
Being nymous online is a Good Thing -- it means people I know IRL can recognize me (I've run into ex-coworkers and old friends I didn't think I'd see again) and it gives me a chance to build a reputation that follows me into Real Life (so potential employers find plenty to recommend me when googling my name). Further, it acts counter to the tendency for anonymous communication to degrade into... well, you're on slashdot; you know exactly what I'm talking about. :)
I don't know Nissan's product line, so I don't know whether your comparison is apt or not, BUT --
If someone forces me to buy ${EXPENSIVE_PRODUCT_A} as part of a bundle, and I don't want it -- instead I want ${CHEAP_PRODUCT_B}, I'm not going to feel the least bit in the wrong for forcefully trading the ${EXPENSIVE_PRODUCT_A} I was saddled with for a ${CHEAP_PRODUCT_B}.
Legally wrong? Sure. Morally wrong? In the case of software -- where they don't need to manufacture or ship ship physical objects, or otherwise incur costs, on account of my action -- I'm going to take a "no".
I read it as indicating that every second a new composite image would be ready, built from data collected within the second prior. Compared to the new ground being broken here, stabilizing the group of images received within that window is child's play.
google linux capabilities
Not without a reboot.
OpenVPN supports sharing a port with a more conventional SSL server in TCP mode.
The point is "defense in depth".
If you don't accept SSH connections that aren't coming over your trusted, separately-keyed VPN, for instance, this is pretty moot.
If you've disabled loadable modules, remounted your root filesystem read-only and dropped capabilities to remount read-write (and otherwise hardened against rootkits), this can be pretty moot on that account too.
If you aren't doing those things, maybe you should think about it.
I'm assuming you consider "corrupt long-time senator" to be synonymous with "long-time senator", and running from there; otherwise, you'd be expected to actually come up with some backing for your assertions. (Biden may have been around for a while, but he's no Ted Stevens).
Don't you mean, unless McCain chooses someone perceived as fresh and new? Otherwise, you've got plank with a fresh face and one old face, and another plank with two old faces... and that's assuming that President and VP are given equal weighting, which obviously isn't the case.
Sure -- but unlike the case you reference, the claim is actually defensible here. When I write a test suite, it's not meant for consumption by folks who aren't developers. When someone builds as OS optimized for ideological purity, it's targeted only at the subset of the population actually interested in the FSF's ideology -- an ideology which certainly includes a meme or three about marketing.
Been there, done that. In such an environment, one generally wants support for some amount of proprietary software -- be it Oracle or JRockit or Splunk or something completely different. One also wants a base with long-term support (such as CentOS or an Ubuntu LTS release). GNewSense doesn't fit the bill.
Ehh, no. Building something like that, even glibc can be too heavy. Notice my mention of specialized embedded distros? They exist for a reason; desktop distros are not a good starting place.
Again: Why would you want to recommend it to your boss, given its mission and purpose? You (and your boss) aren't the target market.
The name helps keep people who would be disappointed by the product away. It's a feature! :)
Test suites typically have only bad names, or no names at all; nobody ever puts marketing resources into them; and why would you ever build something not meant for end-user consumption?
I see no pros, only cons, someone enlighten me