That would be like Linux putting an alert because you ran some non-gpl code in the OS. and you are getting a lecture on how Closed Source Software is so bad.
$ cat/proc/sys/kernel/tainted 12288
While it's not as blatant, Linux (actual Linux, the kernel) does alert users when using non-gpl code in the kernel. It also prints a message during boot, which can be seen via dmesg after boot.
Google filters out conservative news, trump complains, gets blamed for censorship.
Bullshit. Google is not filtering out conservative news. Google is showing the most relative results based on their ranking algorithms. There's a lot more awful things coming out of the trump administration than good things, so having results reflect reality shouldn't be unexpected.
The tweet trump made provides zero details to confirm or deny his claims, just inflammatory statements:
Google search results for “Trump News” shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of.... ....results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!
* 'Google search results for “Trump News”'. So, we're not talking about liberal/conservative/republican/democrat/etc. Trump is just talking about trump. We should full stop right there, cause who even does that?
* "...shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media." WTF does that constitute? I'm certain that a google search for "trump news" will include at least some results that are accurate and true, meaning his statement is patently false.
* "... they have it RIGGED..." Care to elaborate on what exactly is rigged?
* "... for me & others..." Do you honestly believe he searched for "Hanity news" and "Obama news" and others to get a fair comparison of results from a statistically valuable number of them?
* "... so that almost all stories & news is BAD." If I simply display a list of his tweets with no commentary, to many people, that would look overwhelmingly bad. That doesn't make it inaccurate.
* "Fake CNN is prominent."... because they're not "Fake". That's a real news outlet doing real reporting, even if there is a political slant to almost all their op-ed pieces.
* "Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out." WTF is "Fair Media"? And if a news outlet is "Republican/Conservative", doesn't that make it unfair / fake news / biased / pick-your-term? BTW, a google search for "trump news" right now has a "Fox News" tweet as the first result from twitter, right up at the top, with his own tweet in second place. He's just outright lying.
* "96% of........results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media." That's not a real thing. The "National Left-Wing Media" should not be represented as a proper noun as if it's a real group. Besides, "media" in and of itself follows liberal philosophies, so one could paint 100% of it as "left-wing" by some odd definition. He's not defining anything here though.
* "Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good." Bold claim. The latter part is uselessly phrased (IMO, information is neither good nor bad). Google isn't suppressing anything, as far as I can tell. You can still look up all the Fox shit you want via Google.
* "(Google is) controlling what we can & cannot see." This is just plain false. You don't even need Google to get to all the other sites; they're not even in a position where they could do that (except maybe on android or via Chrome, but they don't do so).
The only thing he's really saying is that he doesn't want to see all those negative things about himself, and wants to see more positive things. That would require censorship and/or curation to achieve that result. If he doesn't want to hear what other people are saying, there are places for that (ex. Fox News, or his own Trump TV network).
A $9.99/month subscription to get ONE audiobook a month seems completely useless to me. I'm really hoping TFS is inaccurate.
I tried finding the audiobook subscription on walmart.com, but I can't find the details (yet - maybe it's not live yet).
If it were for one active audiobook at a time, that would make for a great subscription, similar to how the old safari bookshelf worked. However, since they're advertising that you get to keep the audiobook, it seems likely that it IS limited to just ONE audiobook a month. That's just stupid. You can just buy one when you want one - why subscribe?!!?!
Exactly. This is like when someone says, "you're not listening to me", but you did hear everything they said.
I would like them to clearly state what is sent where, and what things get feeds of what data. I strongly suspect it is: * The microphone is always on * A local daemon is constantly watching that data stream for signals that appear to contain "Hey Siri" using a limited pattern recognition algorithm. * The stream is buffered, so it can rewind a little (how far is TBD) * When something that might contain "Hey Siri" is detected, the stream is rewound by XX seconds, and then sent onto servers somewhere (where TBD). * Servers process the stream and perform advanced speech-to-text. If "Hey Siri" is not found in the first XX seconds, it stops streaming and tells the phone to drop the stream. * If "Hey Siri" is found in the first XX seconds, it does its magic on it and sends the results back to the phone, logging the resulting audio and text to a secure location (TBD).
I would find it very very unlikely that they constantly stream everything. The data from every iphone in the world all streaming to servers all at once 24x7x365 would simply be too much for the operators and users not to notice.
I don't think it's all that hard to lay that out in plain english for people to understand. Masking the actual operation and saying, "iPhones do not record audio while listening for Siri wakeup commands", is disingenuous. That may be technically true because it's not "recorded", per say, but it's certainly buffered, and if it's always listening for wake up commands, then the mic is always on and data is being written somewhere (buffer, at minimum). Maybe it's not always listening for wake up commands, and that may be true, but whenever it is, that is listening IMO, and not simply hearing.
IMO,that's be the worst reason to take the money (casual).
A company offered this to me ages ago (money in exchange for not smoking). I turned it down - my freedom of choice can not be purchased for that little. A friend of mine took the money, didn't smoke while at work, but kept smoking outside work... a lot. Any real smokers out there know that's going to be hell every day... it's like repeating the worst part of quitting ever day. And as was said above, $100 is nothing in comparison to the cost of smoking these days (1 pack/day is between $300 - $450/month here), so it's hardly more of a incentive than just quitting on your own.
FWIW, I did eventually quit on my own, start back up 5 years later, and quit again about 4 years go. I used patches + nicotine free ecigs (in tobacco flavor, as well as tons of weird shit like grape, peppermint, vanilla, etc) to help quit.
To anyone that hasn't gone through it, I think it's worth noting that nearly every aid is just a tiny little help to take the edge off. They are by no means a substitution that you can just swap in. Chantex *may* be an exception, but everyone I know that's tried it went nuts while on it. E-cigs with nicotine can come close to a replacement, but you're every bit as addicted still to both the routine and the nicotine, and it's SUPER easy to go right back at any time... you have to diligently reduce the nicotine level, and, IME, you end up hitting the same minimum that's hard to stop that you would if you just reduced the number of cigs you smoke a day (I couldn't get below 4-5 ultralights a day, and had to do cold turkey from there).
The nicotine free ecigs can be hard to find (impossible to find locally in many places, as they have been outlawed for fear that they'll be a gateway for kids to start smoking, ugh), but I found them to be very good for those times when you just NEED that physical act of smoking. IMO, other nicotine products were better for withdrawal from nicotine - patches, gum, etc. YMMV:-)
You're confusing two paragraphs. In the truckers example, I'm saying that self driving could work there, because it's better than relying on someone to pay attention for 8 hours straight (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/summary-hours-service-regulations). We could certainly regulate its use; maybe that is restricted to highways, not to be used on local routes, etc.
By assisted driving, I do mean the stuff you're referring to: lane assist, braking assist if you're going to hit something, adaptive cruise control (slows down for you if you get close to someone, etc), safe takeover and stopping if the driver is unresponsive, etc. The closer the car is to being able to self drive, the better it will be at all those tasks (at least that's what I'm hoping).
Oh, you mean good 'ol Rex? If I have to choose between him or an autonomous car with seats that are just 2 ten penny nails, it's a tough call, but at least it's the right question to ask:-)
I really really hope that those that are leading the push for self driving cars (ie. actually doing the work, or running the business) are simply using it as a means to advance and test assisted driving technology, and that they're just not telling us that they don't even think self driving will happen. If they can get self driving to work acceptably on the road with no one in the car, IMO that'd be enough to use that tech for assisted driving... it's a great test in that way.
I can see self driving stuff working in some situations, but not most of those that people seem to be raving about (ex. taking you to work, then driving itself home or to pick up your kids or just circle around until you're done). Some areas where it might take off (IMO): * long haul trucking. These guys spend way too long behind the wheel, and mostly on highways. It'd probably be safer and more efficient to just hand that off to the computer. * public buses. These have a predefined route, often have bus lanes to use most of the time, they move pretty darn slow already, and, again, people behind the wheel for many hours. Also, people are already used to not being in control in this situation. * taxies. hell no. It's scary enough when the driver isn't so sure where he's going and you have no real way to fix that. I do not want to be stuck in the back seat with no way to stop a self driving taxi that stops listening to me... but I suspect this will happen anyway, at least in certain places.
Overall, the development is good. It'll trickle down to normal cars. There's no reason it has to be on electric cars only, and more safety and assistance would probably be appreciated by just about every driver. The driver should still be a driver though, and be the one responsible for any issues (which means if they give a command to the car, like pressing the brake or gas, it should respond to them, not what the computer says). Telsa seems to have a decent balance right now, but their tech could obviously be better/safer.... there's no reason we can't have cars that are fully capable of self driving in almost all conditions, but just choose when to enable/disable that, like a very advanced cruise control. I'd buy that.
(Sorry... I know you were probably just riffing on the recursive acronym) AFAIK, Elm doesn't support S/MIME nor GPG/PGP (though you can pipe stuff out to gpg to view the plain text, obviously). I'm not even sure Elm is Y2K compliant (according to http://www.instinct.org/elm/, "Update 06th Jan 2000: elm 2.4 is not Y2K compliant."). There are other, and more modern, terminal based email clients that may be worth mentioning. And there are older mail clients that also don't support S/MIME ("mail" from mailutils).
You can also swap out all the GNU software and replace it with alternatives running atop a Linux kernel. How is that different?
Go ahead and do it (or at least think about it), and let me know what you come up with. Linux kernel + busybox on a router is not something people are asking to be called GNU/Linux. These are usually referred to by the distro name, like OpenWRT or Tomato. Linux kernel + android stack is commonly referred to as Android, not Linux nor GNU/Linux. FreeBSD kernel + GNU stack (implemented by Debian) is referred to as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/).
WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux) implements an ABI between the Windows kernel and the userland from other linux based distros. IMO, it's a bit more like WINE or FreeBSD Linux Binary Compatibility than GNU/kFreeBSD, but there's no "Linux" in it.
This all goes back to really stupid features being added to email. There is no good reason to load external resources into an email. Want to include an image in your email? Go for it, but include it in the email. Why the hell would an external image get automatically loaded in an email that I downloaded for offline reading?!?! If it's external, just provide a link to it. Hell, just get rid of HTML email altogether!
The CBC "gadget" vulnerability seems kinda scary (see https://efail.de/), but I'm fairly certain that a signed and encrypted message would identify these (modifying the encrypted message via CBC gadget will break the message signature). While one *can* send an encrypted message that is not signed, that's never actually done. So, if you get an encrypted message that is not signed, that set off an alarm in the email client and lock down that message (sandbox it).
This is 100% the fault of the email client implementations. FWIW, if you still use mutt or pine or alpine etc, you're safe for now. They did mention other backchannels, but didn't name any... maybe more will be disclosed on that later?
The GNU/Linux argument was also propped up by the fact that you can swap out the Linux kernel with FreeBSD's kernel and keep (nearly) the entire rest of the Debian system (or other distros). In that case, it behaves very much like a Linux based distro, but there is no Linux in it. Not many people really used those other things though, and the argument kinda died out due to lack of interest.
Now enter Microsoft, who now has a "Windows Subsystem for Linux", but it's really just a compatibility layer to run all the GNU and other stuff on the Windows kernel. There's really very little "Linux" there.
I don't know how you came up with that question. Resolution is independent of physical size, but you're mixing the two into an incomprehensible question.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 8K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
Is no one using these for monitors?
I need to replace a 30" 2160x1600 monitor (and maybe my seconds screen as well, a 20" 1600x1200 which, when rotated, lines up perfectly with the 30"). A single 4k screen is not enough to replace both of those (and I do make full use of both), but it also makes little sense to get 2x 4k's... if I get them big enough for the 4k to be worth it, then total display width is too big; if I get them smaller, then I lose physical display size. A single large 8k screen could be perfect, especially if it's curved.
I know we're not there on price yet for the 8k's, but I haven't seen one person mention using them as a monitor, and multiple people have said they'll never be worth it, and that seems awfully short sighted.
One path (or aspect) to that would be to disrupt their influence on the legal system and laws (ex. political contributions and lobbyists). "Burn it all down" would achieve that, which would aid in passing copyright reform. I'm not claiming it's right, or the best way, etc, but I think it has more impact than simply telling this echo chamber that we need copyright reform:-)
This is EXACTLY what I was hoping to ask/say here!
The MPAA is in a perfect position to know all the players that have licensed the content. It should be a simple DB lookup, and maybe they could include some valuable info that's almost impossible to find elsewhere - the time periods when the license will be active (so I can see if something is about to be pulled from netflix, for example).
At the very least, it sounds like a very good idea for a legit and very useful site. All the ones I've ever run into point to a lot of shady sites with lots of broken links and incomplete info. The streaming devices usually include some way to search across channels, but, IME, that doesn't work well at all, and it doesn't include channels and mediums that aren't available on that device. I'd love a non-biased site that identified all legit channels to obtain each movie (even if that catalog is just MPAA flicks).
One side of the case could claim, "you can't prove I was stalking you by email because you have no email".
The other side can claim, "I can prove you were stalking me by email because I have a screenshot of a google expired email".
Who is the court going to side with? Either google will need to prove it one way or the other, meaning it didn't actually go away, or they'll have to pick one of the above. If there is supporting evidence of stalking, it might be enough to convince the jury, especially if it's a civil case.
None of this matters though, cause people will find easy ways to make legit copies of it quite quickly. There doesn't need to be a provable paper trail back either, since email is already very easy to spoof but can still be used as evidence.
Reminds me of the book, "Eastern Standard Tribe", by Cory Doctorow.
Since you don't know each others timezones, you might both be waking up at the same time, putting you both in the same tribe.
The headline is also a lie. It's contradicted in the summary itself. This study isn't about going to bed early or late; it's about how much sleep one gets at night (ie: "Night owls' trying to live in a 'morning lark' world"). If the night owls' simply slept in just as much as they stayed up, it would be an entirely different study.
I assume they are using the tag to find the basic URL. I could be wrong.
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Look at the image shared by the AC to which you replied. It took a link that would have been shared as something like:
https://www.amazon.com/s/browse/ref=br_msw_pdt-1?_encoding... etc etc lots of kruft etc etc...
And turned it into :
https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=15569942001
Nowhere in the first link is the relative page "b". AFAICT, they've added some smarts to map to what they know it can go to.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be like Linux putting an alert because you ran some non-gpl code in the OS. and you are getting a lecture on how Closed Source Software is so bad.
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
12288
While it's not as blatant, Linux (actual Linux, the kernel) does alert users when using non-gpl code in the kernel. It also prints a message during boot, which can be seen via dmesg after boot.
Your post should also be removed for copyright infringement: https://www.google.com/search?...
Time to feed the trolls...
Google filters out conservative news, trump complains, gets blamed for censorship.
Bullshit. Google is not filtering out conservative news. Google is showing the most relative results based on their ranking algorithms. There's a lot more awful things coming out of the trump administration than good things, so having results reflect reality shouldn't be unexpected.
The tweet trump made provides zero details to confirm or deny his claims, just inflammatory statements:
Google search results for “Trump News” shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of....
....results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!
* 'Google search results for “Trump News”'. So, we're not talking about liberal/conservative/republican/democrat/etc. Trump is just talking about trump. We should full stop right there, cause who even does that?
* "...shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media." WTF does that constitute? I'm certain that a google search for "trump news" will include at least some results that are accurate and true, meaning his statement is patently false.
* "... they have it RIGGED..." Care to elaborate on what exactly is rigged?
* "... for me & others..." Do you honestly believe he searched for "Hanity news" and "Obama news" and others to get a fair comparison of results from a statistically valuable number of them?
* "... so that almost all stories & news is BAD." If I simply display a list of his tweets with no commentary, to many people, that would look overwhelmingly bad. That doesn't make it inaccurate.
* "Fake CNN is prominent." ... because they're not "Fake". That's a real news outlet doing real reporting, even if there is a political slant to almost all their op-ed pieces.
* "Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out." WTF is "Fair Media"? And if a news outlet is "Republican/Conservative", doesn't that make it unfair / fake news / biased / pick-your-term? BTW, a google search for "trump news" right now has a "Fox News" tweet as the first result from twitter, right up at the top, with his own tweet in second place. He's just outright lying.
* "96% of.... ....results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media." That's not a real thing. The "National Left-Wing Media" should not be represented as a proper noun as if it's a real group. Besides, "media" in and of itself follows liberal philosophies, so one could paint 100% of it as "left-wing" by some odd definition. He's not defining anything here though.
* "Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good." Bold claim. The latter part is uselessly phrased (IMO, information is neither good nor bad). Google isn't suppressing anything, as far as I can tell. You can still look up all the Fox shit you want via Google.
* "(Google is) controlling what we can & cannot see." This is just plain false. You don't even need Google to get to all the other sites; they're not even in a position where they could do that (except maybe on android or via Chrome, but they don't do so).
The only thing he's really saying is that he doesn't want to see all those negative things about himself, and wants to see more positive things. That would require censorship and/or curation to achieve that result. If he doesn't want to hear what other people are saying, there are places for that (ex. Fox News, or his own Trump TV network).
A $9.99/month subscription to get ONE audiobook a month seems completely useless to me. I'm really hoping TFS is inaccurate.
I tried finding the audiobook subscription on walmart.com, but I can't find the details (yet - maybe it's not live yet).
If it were for one active audiobook at a time, that would make for a great subscription, similar to how the old safari bookshelf worked. However, since they're advertising that you get to keep the audiobook, it seems likely that it IS limited to just ONE audiobook a month. That's just stupid. You can just buy one when you want one - why subscribe?!!?!
Exactly. This is like when someone says, "you're not listening to me", but you did hear everything they said.
I would like them to clearly state what is sent where, and what things get feeds of what data. I strongly suspect it is:
* The microphone is always on
* A local daemon is constantly watching that data stream for signals that appear to contain "Hey Siri" using a limited pattern recognition algorithm.
* The stream is buffered, so it can rewind a little (how far is TBD)
* When something that might contain "Hey Siri" is detected, the stream is rewound by XX seconds, and then sent onto servers somewhere (where TBD).
* Servers process the stream and perform advanced speech-to-text. If "Hey Siri" is not found in the first XX seconds, it stops streaming and tells the phone to drop the stream.
* If "Hey Siri" is found in the first XX seconds, it does its magic on it and sends the results back to the phone, logging the resulting audio and text to a secure location (TBD).
I would find it very very unlikely that they constantly stream everything. The data from every iphone in the world all streaming to servers all at once 24x7x365 would simply be too much for the operators and users not to notice.
I don't think it's all that hard to lay that out in plain english for people to understand. Masking the actual operation and saying, "iPhones do not record audio while listening for Siri wakeup commands", is disingenuous. That may be technically true because it's not "recorded", per say, but it's certainly buffered, and if it's always listening for wake up commands, then the mic is always on and data is being written somewhere (buffer, at minimum). Maybe it's not always listening for wake up commands, and that may be true, but whenever it is, that is listening IMO, and not simply hearing.
IMO,that's be the worst reason to take the money (casual).
A company offered this to me ages ago (money in exchange for not smoking). I turned it down - my freedom of choice can not be purchased for that little. A friend of mine took the money, didn't smoke while at work, but kept smoking outside work... a lot. Any real smokers out there know that's going to be hell every day... it's like repeating the worst part of quitting ever day. And as was said above, $100 is nothing in comparison to the cost of smoking these days (1 pack/day is between $300 - $450/month here), so it's hardly more of a incentive than just quitting on your own.
FWIW, I did eventually quit on my own, start back up 5 years later, and quit again about 4 years go. I used patches + nicotine free ecigs (in tobacco flavor, as well as tons of weird shit like grape, peppermint, vanilla, etc) to help quit.
To anyone that hasn't gone through it, I think it's worth noting that nearly every aid is just a tiny little help to take the edge off. They are by no means a substitution that you can just swap in. Chantex *may* be an exception, but everyone I know that's tried it went nuts while on it. E-cigs with nicotine can come close to a replacement, but you're every bit as addicted still to both the routine and the nicotine, and it's SUPER easy to go right back at any time... you have to diligently reduce the nicotine level, and, IME, you end up hitting the same minimum that's hard to stop that you would if you just reduced the number of cigs you smoke a day (I couldn't get below 4-5 ultralights a day, and had to do cold turkey from there).
The nicotine free ecigs can be hard to find (impossible to find locally in many places, as they have been outlawed for fear that they'll be a gateway for kids to start smoking, ugh), but I found them to be very good for those times when you just NEED that physical act of smoking. IMO, other nicotine products were better for withdrawal from nicotine - patches, gum, etc. YMMV :-)
You're confusing two paragraphs. In the truckers example, I'm saying that self driving could work there, because it's better than relying on someone to pay attention for 8 hours straight (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/summary-hours-service-regulations). We could certainly regulate its use; maybe that is restricted to highways, not to be used on local routes, etc.
By assisted driving, I do mean the stuff you're referring to: lane assist, braking assist if you're going to hit something, adaptive cruise control (slows down for you if you get close to someone, etc), safe takeover and stopping if the driver is unresponsive, etc. The closer the car is to being able to self drive, the better it will be at all those tasks (at least that's what I'm hoping).
Oh, you mean good 'ol Rex? If I have to choose between him or an autonomous car with seats that are just 2 ten penny nails, it's a tough call, but at least it's the right question to ask :-)
The right question to ask is : would you prefer to ride in a self-driven car, or with a drunken driver ? and with a very tired driver ?
That's called a false dichotomy, and is certainly not the right question to ask.
I really really hope that those that are leading the push for self driving cars (ie. actually doing the work, or running the business) are simply using it as a means to advance and test assisted driving technology, and that they're just not telling us that they don't even think self driving will happen. If they can get self driving to work acceptably on the road with no one in the car, IMO that'd be enough to use that tech for assisted driving... it's a great test in that way.
I can see self driving stuff working in some situations, but not most of those that people seem to be raving about (ex. taking you to work, then driving itself home or to pick up your kids or just circle around until you're done). Some areas where it might take off (IMO):
* long haul trucking. These guys spend way too long behind the wheel, and mostly on highways. It'd probably be safer and more efficient to just hand that off to the computer.
* public buses. These have a predefined route, often have bus lanes to use most of the time, they move pretty darn slow already, and, again, people behind the wheel for many hours. Also, people are already used to not being in control in this situation.
* taxies. hell no. It's scary enough when the driver isn't so sure where he's going and you have no real way to fix that. I do not want to be stuck in the back seat with no way to stop a self driving taxi that stops listening to me... but I suspect this will happen anyway, at least in certain places.
Overall, the development is good. It'll trickle down to normal cars. There's no reason it has to be on electric cars only, and more safety and assistance would probably be appreciated by just about every driver. The driver should still be a driver though, and be the one responsible for any issues (which means if they give a command to the car, like pressing the brake or gas, it should respond to them, not what the computer says). Telsa seems to have a decent balance right now, but their tech could obviously be better/safer.... there's no reason we can't have cars that are fully capable of self driving in almost all conditions, but just choose when to enable/disable that, like a very advanced cruise control. I'd buy that.
(Sorry... I know you were probably just riffing on the recursive acronym)
AFAIK, Elm doesn't support S/MIME nor GPG/PGP (though you can pipe stuff out to gpg to view the plain text, obviously). I'm not even sure Elm is Y2K compliant (according to http://www.instinct.org/elm/, "Update 06th Jan 2000: elm 2.4 is not Y2K compliant."). There are other, and more modern, terminal based email clients that may be worth mentioning. And there are older mail clients that also don't support S/MIME ("mail" from mailutils).
Agreed. FWIW, I had said, "the argument kinda died out", not that GNU/kFreeBSD died out.
You can also swap out all the GNU software and replace it with alternatives running atop a Linux kernel. How is that different?
Go ahead and do it (or at least think about it), and let me know what you come up with.
Linux kernel + busybox on a router is not something people are asking to be called GNU/Linux. These are usually referred to by the distro name, like OpenWRT or Tomato.
Linux kernel + android stack is commonly referred to as Android, not Linux nor GNU/Linux.
FreeBSD kernel + GNU stack (implemented by Debian) is referred to as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/).
WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux) implements an ABI between the Windows kernel and the userland from other linux based distros. IMO, it's a bit more like WINE or FreeBSD Linux Binary Compatibility than GNU/kFreeBSD, but there's no "Linux" in it.
This all goes back to really stupid features being added to email. There is no good reason to load external resources into an email. Want to include an image in your email? Go for it, but include it in the email. Why the hell would an external image get automatically loaded in an email that I downloaded for offline reading?!?! If it's external, just provide a link to it. Hell, just get rid of HTML email altogether!
The CBC "gadget" vulnerability seems kinda scary (see https://efail.de/), but I'm fairly certain that a signed and encrypted message would identify these (modifying the encrypted message via CBC gadget will break the message signature). While one *can* send an encrypted message that is not signed, that's never actually done. So, if you get an encrypted message that is not signed, that set off an alarm in the email client and lock down that message (sandbox it).
This is 100% the fault of the email client implementations. FWIW, if you still use mutt or pine or alpine etc, you're safe for now. They did mention other backchannels, but didn't name any... maybe more will be disclosed on that later?
The GNU/Linux argument was also propped up by the fact that you can swap out the Linux kernel with FreeBSD's kernel and keep (nearly) the entire rest of the Debian system (or other distros). In that case, it behaves very much like a Linux based distro, but there is no Linux in it. Not many people really used those other things though, and the argument kinda died out due to lack of interest.
Now enter Microsoft, who now has a "Windows Subsystem for Linux", but it's really just a compatibility layer to run all the GNU and other stuff on the Windows kernel. There's really very little "Linux" there.
I don't know how you came up with that question. Resolution is independent of physical size, but you're mixing the two into an incomprehensible question.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 8K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
Is no one using these for monitors?
I need to replace a 30" 2160x1600 monitor (and maybe my seconds screen as well, a 20" 1600x1200 which, when rotated, lines up perfectly with the 30"). A single 4k screen is not enough to replace both of those (and I do make full use of both), but it also makes little sense to get 2x 4k's... if I get them big enough for the 4k to be worth it, then total display width is too big; if I get them smaller, then I lose physical display size. A single large 8k screen could be perfect, especially if it's curved.
I know we're not there on price yet for the 8k's, but I haven't seen one person mention using them as a monitor, and multiple people have said they'll never be worth it, and that seems awfully short sighted.
One path (or aspect) to that would be to disrupt their influence on the legal system and laws (ex. political contributions and lobbyists). "Burn it all down" would achieve that, which would aid in passing copyright reform. I'm not claiming it's right, or the best way, etc, but I think it has more impact than simply telling this echo chamber that we need copyright reform :-)
I also came here to say this, and have mod points, but both you and GP are already modded up :-)
I'd like to take it a step further and ask why the editors allowed it on the front page?
This is EXACTLY what I was hoping to ask/say here!
The MPAA is in a perfect position to know all the players that have licensed the content. It should be a simple DB lookup, and maybe they could include some valuable info that's almost impossible to find elsewhere - the time periods when the license will be active (so I can see if something is about to be pulled from netflix, for example).
At the very least, it sounds like a very good idea for a legit and very useful site. All the ones I've ever run into point to a lot of shady sites with lots of broken links and incomplete info. The streaming devices usually include some way to search across channels, but, IME, that doesn't work well at all, and it doesn't include channels and mediums that aren't available on that device. I'd love a non-biased site that identified all legit channels to obtain each movie (even if that catalog is just MPAA flicks).
That was the exact opposite on purpose!
One side of the case could claim, "you can't prove I was stalking you by email because you have no email".
The other side can claim, "I can prove you were stalking me by email because I have a screenshot of a google expired email".
Who is the court going to side with? Either google will need to prove it one way or the other, meaning it didn't actually go away, or they'll have to pick one of the above. If there is supporting evidence of stalking, it might be enough to convince the jury, especially if it's a civil case.
None of this matters though, cause people will find easy ways to make legit copies of it quite quickly. There doesn't need to be a provable paper trail back either, since email is already very easy to spoof but can still be used as evidence.
Reminds me of the book, "Eastern Standard Tribe", by Cory Doctorow.
Since you don't know each others timezones, you might both be waking up at the same time, putting you both in the same tribe.
The headline is also a lie. It's contradicted in the summary itself. This study isn't about going to bed early or late; it's about how much sleep one gets at night (ie: "Night owls' trying to live in a 'morning lark' world"). If the night owls' simply slept in just as much as they stayed up, it would be an entirely different study.
Is it still the case with Forward Secrecy ciphers?
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
If you're doing the math, I'm worried.
I assume they are using the tag to find the basic URL. I could be wrong.
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Look at the image shared by the AC to which you replied. It took a link that would have been shared as something like:
https://www.amazon.com/s/browse/ref=br_msw_pdt-1?_encoding... etc etc lots of kruft etc etc ...
And turned it into :
https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=15569942001
Nowhere in the first link is the relative page "b". AFAICT, they've added some smarts to map to what they know it can go to.