I thought religious folk were just interested in doing good.. you mean they'll only donate to charities that give the help with strings attached? Like food handouts - after the sermon?
Tch. Doesn't seem very "love thy brother" to me.
You can have community and common ground without religion ; we've just forgotten a lot of the ways how, because religion worked so hard to stamp everything else out - the stigma and shame of not attending church on a Sunday in some communities being the least of it. And capitalism doesn't want us to have community that isn't based on it's products or services.
It's not the public key, which is the part that is distributed, that is the part you need. You need the private key to sign the binaries so that UEFI can use the public key to verify them.
As the name implies, the private key is kept private. You don't need to distribute it, just sign things with it. If the key holder is smart, they'll generate the key on a smart card and arrange matters such that it never leaves the smart card, and then lock it in a safe when they aren't signing binaries.
Once the private key is distributed it loses all it's value, and it will get revoked. This is the reason that Canonical have chosen a bootloader with a more liberal / promiscuous license than GRUB 2 for Secure Boot in Ubuntu ; the GPL license could compel them to release their signing key (even though the FSF has stated that they will play nice and not enforce this).
Yeah, and not being able to install Synaptic to get those advanced features back is a real bummer. Oh, wait...
They made a choice to save the disk space so they could put in a more noob-friendly package manager. Which lets you buy stuff. And fund the development of the OS which the rest of us freetards get for nothing. Whereas for those of us that miss Synaptic, we have to *endure* typing one command. Or installing it with the Software Centre, if we like irony. That sure is 30 seconds I'll never get back...
The way I see it, is.. what's the first thing you do when you close an app? Open another one.
In both old GNOME 2 and Unity, the button to open a new app is top left of the screen. So when you close an app with a top-left button, your pointer is now very close to where it needs to be to open a new one.
Windows puts the button to close an app, and the button to open one in opposite corners. Think of the extra mouse miles! I'm not sure what OS X does but it looks like you have to at least cross the vertical distance of the screen. Maybe that's why the fad for losing vertical resolution has come about..
You can set noexec for FAT and NTFS, the default is that everything is +x though.
There are executable types that will run on Linux like Python scripts, shell scripts, etc. But it's hard to think of one that will work out of the box on both Windows and Linux ;.NET executables might be a candidate, if your system has Mono installed. And Wine will permit some Windows malware to run.
Also evidence of correlation with religion ; a higher incidence than average amongst Muslims and Christians (a shame this study didn't assay Atheists though).
What if they could make a pill that cured the source of your pain, relieving you of both your pain AND your financial burden to pay them?
Do you think they would?
Or do you think they'd quietly keep supplying you your painkiller for 17 years, until the patent expired, and then try and sell you a new one developed solely because they can't make the same margin on the old one, now that any chemist worth a damn can legally make it for a few cents per pill?
There's a license for that ; the Affero GPL, which has the same terms as the GPL but counts use of the software via a network to be the same as distribution. But you can expect all but the most hardened Free Software advocates to avoid that one like the plague.
Who gives a flying monkey fart if you use fewer computer resources? Computer resources, unless you hadn't noticed, are staggeringly cheap, and get cheaper every year. My time is expensive. I'm paid to be inventive and clever. Spending that time using my brain as a primitive scripting engine instead of actually doing my job is truly inefficient and wasteful.
I usually follow the same path for Ubuntu also, back up the home folder and reinstall from scratch. I was pleasantly surprised with the upgrade from Oneiric to Precise this time around.
But you might let them monitor your usage in exchange for paying for your electricity - which is really what the deal is. They provide a service, which they have used their vast economies of scale to make so incredibly cheap that they can pay for it out of the almost-zero chance that someone might sell you something.
This is a much smaller cost for most people than the cost of setting up their own server, paying for the hardware, the electricity, and most of all, paying with their time to configure and maintain it.
If you really value your privacy that much, you should be encrypting all your mail anyway. Given that email is a store-and-forward protocol you have no assurance of the route it takes to be delivered to you, and the vast majority of email is currently plaintext. Google is just doing something that's been technically possible for decades - snooping on email - but they figured out a way to make it legal and profitable on a mass scale.
Some phones have signed bootloaders ; these phones are very hard to modify. This is a deliberate design that makes the phone harder to modify. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the act of circumventing access controls (regardless of whether copyright infringement occurs) ; there are some exemptions for "wireless telephones", but they are conditional enough that it's a grey area. Cellphone manufacturers didn't buy this law (the media cartels did) but they do benefit indirectly from it ; I wouldn't be surprised to find they had lobbied to strengthen these laws or create new ones.
Probably not ; it was more like the government saw little pound signs when they thought about all the money they could get from selling off the wide swathes of bandwidth that analogue transmissions currently occupy, and their corporate cronies saw little pound signs when they thought of all the lovely services they could charge you through the nose for that use the aforementioned bandwidth.
Digital is much more efficient. Alas, it's also much more difficult to produce reception equipment for - there won't be any more kids playing with their crystal radio sets. And it has some other unfortunate properties linked to the codec used for the content.
Pardon me if I assume that a "Briefing Paper" by a right-wing think-tank might also be biased. Both of them can cherry-pick bits of Milton Friedman to support one point of view or the other.
I find this paper to also be full of spin ; e.g.
More damaging for Klein’s case, Thatcher was not implementing unpopular reforms. On the contrary, surveys during the strike showed that the public systematically opposed the strikers, and that opposition grew during the strike.
It doesn't cite who performed the surveys, what bias *they* may have had, etc. Never mind that we are talking about a government here, of a party that has recently been shown to be deeply in bed with the popular press, who as I recall, worked very hard to bias public opinion against the striking miners. I was quite young at the time, I remember having a preference for the Conservative party and Margaret Thatcher over the Labour party. I guess I was young and susceptible to spin.
Other evidence of bias : substitution of the word "liberalization" for "privatization" throughout the paper ; the corporate acquisitions being discussed in the Shock Doctrine are anything but "liberal" ; not the formation of a healthy market with multiple participants, but a sudden and complete monopoly over a local service or industry as the result of a disaster, often with Government sponsorship, which would seem to be the total antithesis of the liberal doctrine which preaches a diverse market with as small a Government as possible.
It also reads like a personal defence of a slur against Milton Friedman. I think the contention here is that while Mr Friedman may in fact have the good intentions he claims, the evidence is that liberal doctrine doesn't actually seem to work ; the intended liberalization of destabilised regions / economies doesn't actually take place. The natural path of capitalism is not liberalism but oligarchy, as profit concentrates power which begets more profit, ad infinitum. I think we can all agree that the liberal tenets of reducing the power of Government in order to reduce it's potential for collusion and corruption seem attractive ; but rather than "less government", what we tend to see demanded by corporate interests instead is "less of the government that gets in my way! (and the government that gives me money is just fine, thanks)". Pure liberalism is just as much an artificial, fanciful state of affairs as pure communism, because of this effect of concentration of power, so paradoxically, if liberalism is to take hold, you need strong regulation.
Complete deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry would be nuts. You just have to look at the shit they get away with now, with strong regulation in place - it makes the plot of "The Fugitive", where a pharmaceutical company frames a doctor for murder because he's on the brink of discovering their new wonder-drug is killing people, seem pretty plausible. There's a reason they are strongly regulated in the first place ; it used to be the laissez faire environment you propose. Removing this regulatory structure would remove the FDA corruption that does things like take cheap, generic off-label medicine and turn it into a money-spinner, but it would also open us back up to the unrestricted sale of snake oil.
The way the herbal "supplement" market works is not how I would want things ; the reason they use the word "supplement" is because they aren't allowed to claim any medical efficacy. You could argue that this is because they don't want the overhead of regulation on their product. You could argue that it's because they don't have any proof of medical efficacy. Proving efficacy via clinical trials is a very expensive business - it's the bulk of the cost of bringing any drug to market (apart from the marketing), and one of the main justifications of the patent protection they receive, because once it's proven, the cat is out of the bag, the molecule suddenly has value.
You say that the FDA should take responsibility for giving an opinion on efficacy ; I agree that this is an ideal responsibility of government. Perhaps there should be a "G-Prize" for new drugs, with the best candidates given clinical trials, and those that prove more effective than the existing therapies granted approval.
Breast milk, particularly the first let down, is rich in antibodies. Therefore you pass a limited form of immunity to your children ; the mother is presumably exposed to the same nasties from sharing a house with the father (in an unbroken home).
This is only passive immunity ; it's the "give a man a fish" immunity rather than the "teach a man to fish" that you get from actual real exposure to germs.
It's not "Sometimes" in my experience, the vast majority of Word documents I receive look substantially different to their intended rendering in LibreOffice. Which I find to be a shame. I usually dare not edit them and send them back because I fear that it will ruin the layout. Happily the work-issue laptop is Windows + Office. I get my productive work done on Linux and read documents on Windows.
Since I don't really care about the layout, it doesn't bother me too much - I'm more interested in source code. The compiler doesn't care which font I choose.
Again, might be reverse correlation ; they're religious because they're more gullible. I'd certainly like to think that, but I do actually lean the other way and think that religion activity rots your capacity for critical thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought religious folk were just interested in doing good.. you mean they'll only donate to charities that give the help with strings attached? Like food handouts - after the sermon?
Tch. Doesn't seem very "love thy brother" to me.
You can have community and common ground without religion ; we've just forgotten a lot of the ways how, because religion worked so hard to stamp everything else out - the stigma and shame of not attending church on a Sunday in some communities being the least of it. And capitalism doesn't want us to have community that isn't based on it's products or services.
It's not the public key, which is the part that is distributed, that is the part you need. You need the private key to sign the binaries so that UEFI can use the public key to verify them.
As the name implies, the private key is kept private. You don't need to distribute it, just sign things with it. If the key holder is smart, they'll generate the key on a smart card and arrange matters such that it never leaves the smart card, and then lock it in a safe when they aren't signing binaries.
Once the private key is distributed it loses all it's value, and it will get revoked. This is the reason that Canonical have chosen a bootloader with a more liberal / promiscuous license than GRUB 2 for Secure Boot in Ubuntu ; the GPL license could compel them to release their signing key (even though the FSF has stated that they will play nice and not enforce this).
Yeah, and not being able to install Synaptic to get those advanced features back is a real bummer. Oh, wait...
They made a choice to save the disk space so they could put in a more noob-friendly package manager. Which lets you buy stuff. And fund the development of the OS which the rest of us freetards get for nothing. Whereas for those of us that miss Synaptic, we have to *endure* typing one command. Or installing it with the Software Centre, if we like irony. That sure is 30 seconds I'll never get back...
I detect a note of sarcasm....
The way I see it, is .. what's the first thing you do when you close an app? Open another one.
In both old GNOME 2 and Unity, the button to open a new app is top left of the screen. So when you close an app with a top-left button, your pointer is now very close to where it needs to be to open a new one.
Windows puts the button to close an app, and the button to open one in opposite corners. Think of the extra mouse miles! I'm not sure what OS X does but it looks like you have to at least cross the vertical distance of the screen. Maybe that's why the fad for losing vertical resolution has come about..
You can set noexec for FAT and NTFS, the default is that everything is +x though.
There are executable types that will run on Linux like Python scripts, shell scripts, etc. But it's hard to think of one that will work out of the box on both Windows and Linux ; .NET executables might be a candidate, if your system has Mono installed. And Wine will permit some Windows malware to run.
Also evidence of correlation with religion ; a higher incidence than average amongst Muslims and Christians (a shame this study didn't assay Atheists though).
What if they could make a pill that cured the source of your pain, relieving you of both your pain AND your financial burden to pay them?
Do you think they would?
Or do you think they'd quietly keep supplying you your painkiller for 17 years, until the patent expired, and then try and sell you a new one developed solely because they can't make the same margin on the old one, now that any chemist worth a damn can legally make it for a few cents per pill?
There's a license for that ; the Affero GPL, which has the same terms as the GPL but counts use of the software via a network to be the same as distribution. But you can expect all but the most hardened Free Software advocates to avoid that one like the plague.
Who gives a flying monkey fart if you use fewer computer resources? Computer resources, unless you hadn't noticed, are staggeringly cheap, and get cheaper every year. My time is expensive. I'm paid to be inventive and clever. Spending that time using my brain as a primitive scripting engine instead of actually doing my job is truly inefficient and wasteful.
I usually follow the same path for Ubuntu also, back up the home folder and reinstall from scratch. I was pleasantly surprised with the upgrade from Oneiric to Precise this time around.
But you might let them monitor your usage in exchange for paying for your electricity - which is really what the deal is. They provide a service, which they have used their vast economies of scale to make so incredibly cheap that they can pay for it out of the almost-zero chance that someone might sell you something.
This is a much smaller cost for most people than the cost of setting up their own server, paying for the hardware, the electricity, and most of all, paying with their time to configure and maintain it.
If you really value your privacy that much, you should be encrypting all your mail anyway. Given that email is a store-and-forward protocol you have no assurance of the route it takes to be delivered to you, and the vast majority of email is currently plaintext. Google is just doing something that's been technically possible for decades - snooping on email - but they figured out a way to make it legal and profitable on a mass scale.
Ubuntu also goes one further and has the tap-type mechanism for menu items, which is great for apps with huge forests of menu options.
Hah, something Unity did better than Mac? Unity puts the menu at the top of whatever screen your pointer is on.
Some phones have signed bootloaders ; these phones are very hard to modify. This is a deliberate design that makes the phone harder to modify. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the act of circumventing access controls (regardless of whether copyright infringement occurs) ; there are some exemptions for "wireless telephones", but they are conditional enough that it's a grey area. Cellphone manufacturers didn't buy this law (the media cartels did) but they do benefit indirectly from it ; I wouldn't be surprised to find they had lobbied to strengthen these laws or create new ones.
Probably not ; it was more like the government saw little pound signs when they thought about all the money they could get from selling off the wide swathes of bandwidth that analogue transmissions currently occupy, and their corporate cronies saw little pound signs when they thought of all the lovely services they could charge you through the nose for that use the aforementioned bandwidth.
Digital is much more efficient. Alas, it's also much more difficult to produce reception equipment for - there won't be any more kids playing with their crystal radio sets. And it has some other unfortunate properties linked to the codec used for the content.
Pardon me if I assume that a "Briefing Paper" by a right-wing think-tank might also be biased. Both of them can cherry-pick bits of Milton Friedman to support one point of view or the other.
I find this paper to also be full of spin ; e.g.
More damaging for Klein’s case, Thatcher
was not implementing unpopular reforms. On
the contrary, surveys during the strike showed
that the public systematically opposed the
strikers, and that opposition grew during the
strike.
It doesn't cite who performed the surveys, what bias *they* may have had, etc. Never mind that we are talking about a government here, of a party that has recently been shown to be deeply in bed with the popular press, who as I recall, worked very hard to bias public opinion against the striking miners. I was quite young at the time, I remember having a preference for the Conservative party and Margaret Thatcher over the Labour party. I guess I was young and susceptible to spin.
Other evidence of bias : substitution of the word "liberalization" for "privatization" throughout the paper ; the corporate acquisitions being discussed in the Shock Doctrine are anything but "liberal" ; not the formation of a healthy market with multiple participants, but a sudden and complete monopoly over a local service or industry as the result of a disaster, often with Government sponsorship, which would seem to be the total antithesis of the liberal doctrine which preaches a diverse market with as small a Government as possible.
It also reads like a personal defence of a slur against Milton Friedman. I think the contention here is that while Mr Friedman may in fact have the good intentions he claims, the evidence is that liberal doctrine doesn't actually seem to work ; the intended liberalization of destabilised regions / economies doesn't actually take place. The natural path of capitalism is not liberalism but oligarchy, as profit concentrates power which begets more profit, ad infinitum. I think we can all agree that the liberal tenets of reducing the power of Government in order to reduce it's potential for collusion and corruption seem attractive ; but rather than "less government", what we tend to see demanded by corporate interests instead is "less of the government that gets in my way! (and the government that gives me money is just fine, thanks)". Pure liberalism is just as much an artificial, fanciful state of affairs as pure communism, because of this effect of concentration of power, so paradoxically, if liberalism is to take hold, you need strong regulation.
Complete deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry would be nuts. You just have to look at the shit they get away with now, with strong regulation in place - it makes the plot of "The Fugitive", where a pharmaceutical company frames a doctor for murder because he's on the brink of discovering their new wonder-drug is killing people, seem pretty plausible. There's a reason they are strongly regulated in the first place ; it used to be the laissez faire environment you propose. Removing this regulatory structure would remove the FDA corruption that does things like take cheap, generic off-label medicine and turn it into a money-spinner, but it would also open us back up to the unrestricted sale of snake oil.
The way the herbal "supplement" market works is not how I would want things ; the reason they use the word "supplement" is because they aren't allowed to claim any medical efficacy. You could argue that this is because they don't want the overhead of regulation on their product. You could argue that it's because they don't have any proof of medical efficacy. Proving efficacy via clinical trials is a very expensive business - it's the bulk of the cost of bringing any drug to market (apart from the marketing), and one of the main justifications of the patent protection they receive, because once it's proven, the cat is out of the bag, the molecule suddenly has value.
You say that the FDA should take responsibility for giving an opinion on efficacy ; I agree that this is an ideal responsibility of government. Perhaps there should be a "G-Prize" for new drugs, with the best candidates given clinical trials, and those that prove more effective than the existing therapies granted approval.
They may even have just cherry picked the only ones they could find of legal age. I can't believe they only had evidence on two of them.
Breast milk, particularly the first let down, is rich in antibodies. Therefore you pass a limited form of immunity to your children ; the mother is presumably exposed to the same nasties from sharing a house with the father (in an unbroken home).
This is only passive immunity ; it's the "give a man a fish" immunity rather than the "teach a man to fish" that you get from actual real exposure to germs.
The point of the propeller is to push the air away from the aircraft, not into it.
Komodo Edit is pretty good for Python, and easy enough to shove on a USB stick.
It's not "Sometimes" in my experience, the vast majority of Word documents I receive look substantially different to their intended rendering in LibreOffice. Which I find to be a shame. I usually dare not edit them and send them back because I fear that it will ruin the layout. Happily the work-issue laptop is Windows + Office. I get my productive work done on Linux and read documents on Windows.
Since I don't really care about the layout, it doesn't bother me too much - I'm more interested in source code. The compiler doesn't care which font I choose.
What's a ninja/pirate's favourite blowgun poison? Cur-arrrr-ré.
Again, might be reverse correlation ; they're religious because they're more gullible. I'd certainly like to think that, but I do actually lean the other way and think that religion activity rots your capacity for critical thinking.
My wife is a highly educated, PhD holding, paediatric oncologist with a strong background in genetics and microbiology.
She's also an evangelical Christian, goes to church twice some Sundays, bible group once a week, etc.
And - I must emphasise, this is not a joke - she actually fell for the "Did you know they are taking the word 'gullible' out of the dictionary?" gag.