So you basically have the right idea, but described it the way Unix-based systems do it.
On any Unix desktop environment that I know, the login screen runs before the user desktop is even started. Actually, after logging in you can see how the user desktop starts up, complete with this progress-bar like thingy in the middle of the screen.
What you might think is the lock screen, which is indeed a kind of window which entirely covers the normal desktop, and which can be "shattered".
You can get convicted for a sex crime for about anything. I knew a guy who got convicted for a sex crime for having used the command dpkg --purge. Turned out the forensic "expert" knew nothing about Linux, and figured that this is a command to remove all traces of kiddie porn...
Well to punish the girl might dissuade her from working in technology. We can't have that now can we?
Well, she'll just work in justice then. You don't need an understanding of technology there. And that way, she later can get back at her geeky classmate by punishing him harshly for repairing a friends' computer...
And he's not "going back and forth" but rather "rocking back and forth" slightly to help stay upright.
I'm not sure about the US, but here in Europe the rules of the road clearly say that cyclists have to put down their foot on the road at a stop sign, or else it is considered as a rolling stop. So even if the guy is talented enough to stop with his feet in the air, it would still be against the rules.
That all depends on what you consider pissing off the drivers behind the Google car to be.
If anything, those drivers would (should) be pissed off at the cyclist, and not at the poor confused google car. Any cyclist figuring out what's going on (and this guy did, as seen in his blog post) would either put his foot down, or else just go ahead.
This does, however, break down when cars arrive from all directions at the same time, a situation often used by software developers as an example of a deadlock. But in every other situation, it is clearly defined who goes first, with no signs needed.
Actually, 3 cars (on a 4-direction crossroads) is enough to make the system deadlock, as long as the rightmost car wants to turn left (having to wait for the left-most car whose path it would be crossing). Left-most waits for middle, and middle waits for right-most. So, it doesn't take cars from all directions to make the system break down.
But usually (with human drivers) you solve the situation with hand signs. Three google cars meeting at such a crossroads would wait forever.
perhaps with `reduce' tickets of say $5, that they could pay out of their google wallet account.
Excellent idea! Maybe, as the car doing the ticketing is google, and as the wallet is google as well, here's an excellent opportunity here to streamline the procedure: Google just takes the $5 fine out of the infringers wallet directly, keeps the $4 commission, and forwards the remaining $1 to police.
Police can arrest whoever they want to. What are the judges and parliament going to do about it? The police are the ones who have guns.
Technically, using their guns in such a way (i.e. overstepping their constitutional mandate) would be a coup d'État. And the only thing the judges and parliaments could do in such a case would be to call on the populace to resist. And even that is moot, if the police had the foresight to occupy the media (TV stations,...) first (which is actually what often happens during a coup d'État). There's still the internet to get the word out, but right now, they're taking "care" of that... Mesh networks? Oops, they're taking care of that one too.
"independent judiciary" means that the "three powers" (judiciary, legislative and executive) are independent from each other. Police (part of the executive) cannot just arrest a judge (without the plenary of all judges agreeing to it first). Parliament (legislative) cannot just fire a specific judge. Police cannot arrest members of parliament (without rest of parliament lifting his immunity first). Etc.
I think you have a weird definition of government.
Government can mean many things. Colloquially, it could be all of the state and all civil servants. But in the most restrictive meaning it would just be prime minister, ministers and state secretaries. Many legal texts use the latter, most restrictive meaning.
Most people concluded that this new "feature" must be crap, because Poettering usually delivers crap.
However, even without knowing Poettering and his previous work, you can see that the idea is half-baked. Look at the console examples closely.
Yes, nowhere does it prompt for a root password! Which means that anybody who can get to a virtual terminal can become root by just typing machinectl shell. And somebody who is logged in over the network (presumably...) can't log in as root at all, even knowing the password.
And frankly, what is the trouble of sneaking "unwanted" environment stuff into su? You have to enter the root password anyways, so the only thing which you could hope to achieve was what happens before password validation. And while in the past there had indeed be vulnerabilities that attacked su in such a way (sneaking LD_PRELOAD into it), these have been fixed since long ago.
Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money,
A charity (or even a beggar) rarely needs to prove that the giver gave the money voluntarily.
for being taken strange places by strangers,
A taxi driver (or even bus driver...) rarely needs to prove that their passenger did indeed want to go where they wanted to go... Even if he is a minor (at least for buses). And even if you do accidentally hop on the wrong train, I don't think you've got a case to prosecute the driver for kidnapping...
or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex.
Really, in daily life, giving or lending money, or giving people a ride is common, without needing to worry about getting a written affidavit that it is indeed voluntarily. And somehow, this still doesn't hamper our ability to prosecute against genuine cases of theft or robbery, or of kidnapping. Why can't sex be treated the same way?
Most of our team's time so far this year was spent porting our app to Microsoft SQL Server 2014.
And you wonder why no developer worth his salt wants to work for you? D'oh...
Customers demand it, so we have to do it.
Really? So charge them extra for it...
so I don't see how things are ever going to get better until we can hire more people.
... or switch over to a saner platform? And for those few customers who demand Microsoft quality, just skip testing, and they'll never notice it's no longer Microsoft...:-)
But workers who need their hands held can be replaced... except in government where it's difficult to fire even those people who clearly deserve it.
Wrong. But like in any other workplace, workers can only be fired by their boss, not by mere coworkers. And the boss, in this case, is the citizens of Munich, and they make their hiring & firing decision on election day. Make sure these 2 councilmembers' ineptitude (or worse: bribability) is well-known so that the "boss" can make an informed decision the next time he is called to make one.
In the meantime, if these councilmembers let their laptop "age there unused", maybe they can be put to better use elsewhere? Just take them back, and hand them out to other workers who actually have a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
Any idea why it took them so long?
So you basically have the right idea, but described it the way Unix-based systems do it.
On any Unix desktop environment that I know, the login screen runs before the user desktop is even started. Actually, after logging in you can see how the user desktop starts up, complete with this progress-bar like thingy in the middle of the screen.
What you might think is the lock screen, which is indeed a kind of window which entirely covers the normal desktop, and which can be "shattered".
Well, mentioning "left hand" in the summary was asking for that...
They'd have to record the micro-movements of my pants pocket where I keep my cell phone
Well, if your browsing one of those sites, your "pant pocket"'s movements won't be micro...
You can get convicted for a sex crime for about anything. I knew a guy who got convicted for a sex crime for having used the command dpkg --purge. Turned out the forensic "expert" knew nothing about Linux, and figured that this is a command to remove all traces of kiddie porn...
If a drone is explosive, it's because the pilot is a terrorist.
Or that Sony manufactured the battery.
North Korea seems to think that Sony are terrorists...
laughing at posts on slashdot while drinking
A, that's what is meant when somebody says "this joke is killing me"...
Well to punish the girl might dissuade her from working in technology. We can't have that now can we?
Well, she'll just work in justice then. You don't need an understanding of technology there. And that way, she later can get back at her geeky classmate by punishing him harshly for repairing a friends' computer...
No, graphists are not better than other people at their job.
A web developer still makes better web sites than a graphist.
And a doctor still knows better when to shut up about medical details than a graphist.
And no, people in general don't like newsletters (even when they DON'T divulge private details to other recipients).
So, please get back to your pretty pictures, and let us do OUR jobs.
And he's not "going back and forth" but rather "rocking back and forth" slightly to help stay upright.
I'm not sure about the US, but here in Europe the rules of the road clearly say that cyclists have to put down their foot on the road at a stop sign, or else it is considered as a rolling stop. So even if the guy is talented enough to stop with his feet in the air, it would still be against the rules.
That all depends on what you consider pissing off the drivers behind the Google car to be.
If anything, those drivers would (should) be pissed off at the cyclist, and not at the poor confused google car. Any cyclist figuring out what's going on (and this guy did, as seen in his blog post) would either put his foot down, or else just go ahead.
This does, however, break down when cars arrive from all directions at the same time, a situation often used by software developers as an example of a deadlock. But in every other situation, it is clearly defined who goes first, with no signs needed.
Actually, 3 cars (on a 4-direction crossroads) is enough to make the system deadlock, as long as the rightmost car wants to turn left (having to wait for the left-most car whose path it would be crossing). Left-most waits for middle, and middle waits for right-most. So, it doesn't take cars from all directions to make the system break down.
But usually (with human drivers) you solve the situation with hand signs. Three google cars meeting at such a crossroads would wait forever.
perhaps with `reduce' tickets of say $5, that they could pay out of their google wallet account.
Excellent idea! Maybe, as the car doing the ticketing is google, and as the wallet is google as well, here's an excellent opportunity here to streamline the procedure: Google just takes the $5 fine out of the infringers wallet directly, keeps the $4 commission, and forwards the remaining $1 to police.
Police can arrest whoever they want to. What are the judges and parliament going to do about it? The police are the ones who have guns.
Technically, using their guns in such a way (i.e. overstepping their constitutional mandate) would be a coup d'État. And the only thing the judges and parliaments could do in such a case would be to call on the populace to resist. And even that is moot, if the police had the foresight to occupy the media (TV stations, ...) first (which is actually what often happens during a coup d'État). There's still the internet to get the word out, but right now, they're taking "care" of that... Mesh networks? Oops, they're taking care of that one too.
"independent judiciary" means that the "three powers" (judiciary, legislative and executive) are independent from each other. Police (part of the executive) cannot just arrest a judge (without the plenary of all judges agreeing to it first). Parliament (legislative) cannot just fire a specific judge. Police cannot arrest members of parliament (without rest of parliament lifting his immunity first). Etc.
I think you have a weird definition of government.
Government can mean many things. Colloquially, it could be all of the state and all civil servants. But in the most restrictive meaning it would just be prime minister, ministers and state secretaries. Many legal texts use the latter, most restrictive meaning.
However, even without knowing Poettering and his previous work, you can see that the idea is half-baked. Look at the console examples closely.
Yes, nowhere does it prompt for a root password! Which means that anybody who can get to a virtual terminal can become root by just typing machinectl shell. And somebody who is logged in over the network (presumably...) can't log in as root at all, even knowing the password.
And frankly, what is the trouble of sneaking "unwanted" environment stuff into su? You have to enter the root password anyways, so the only thing which you could hope to achieve was what happens before password validation. And while in the past there had indeed be vulnerabilities that attacked su in such a way (sneaking LD_PRELOAD into it), these have been fixed since long ago.
And unlike your guy from Germany, the guy I know didn't lose (and that's how his name ends).
Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money,
A charity (or even a beggar) rarely needs to prove that the giver gave the money voluntarily.
for being taken strange places by strangers,
A taxi driver (or even bus driver...) rarely needs to prove that their passenger did indeed want to go where they wanted to go... Even if he is a minor (at least for buses). And even if you do accidentally hop on the wrong train, I don't think you've got a case to prosecute the driver for kidnapping...
or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex.
Really, in daily life, giving or lending money, or giving people a ride is common, without needing to worry about getting a written affidavit that it is indeed voluntarily. And somehow, this still doesn't hamper our ability to prosecute against genuine cases of theft or robbery, or of kidnapping. Why can't sex be treated the same way?
Most of our team's time so far this year was spent porting our app to Microsoft SQL Server 2014.
And you wonder why no developer worth his salt wants to work for you? D'oh...
Customers demand it, so we have to do it.
Really? So charge them extra for it...
so I don't see how things are ever going to get better until we can hire more people.
... or switch over to a saner platform? And for those few customers who demand Microsoft quality, just skip testing, and they'll never notice it's no longer Microsoft... :-)
Makes $300k and can't quote... Who is this company who's throwing out that much money after dimwits? :-)
Well said!
But workers who need their hands held can be replaced... except in government where it's difficult to fire even those people who clearly deserve it.
Wrong. But like in any other workplace, workers can only be fired by their boss, not by mere coworkers. And the boss, in this case, is the citizens of Munich, and they make their hiring & firing decision on election day. Make sure these 2 councilmembers' ineptitude (or worse: bribability) is well-known so that the "boss" can make an informed decision the next time he is called to make one.
In the meantime, if these councilmembers let their laptop "age there unused", maybe they can be put to better use elsewhere? Just take them back, and hand them out to other workers who actually have a clue.
... and in any case (as others have pointed out) your creation is just a derivative work of the chef where you ate yesterday evening...
A common threshold would benefit small, well endowed, and arguably elitist institutions.
My Word! This university is a tripod!