Except for the fact that eliminating guns DOES reduce (and significantly) gun violence.
But other than you being wrong, it's exactly the same.
Assuming you are right, the analogy still holds water. Guns are still legal (in many places). Use of guns to commit crimes is still illegal. Therefore, use of Torrents Time to purposefully infringe copyright should be illegal, but Torrents Time should (arguably) remain legal. This analogy isn't quite as solid, since many people think there should be varying levels of firearm regulation from completely outlawed to heavily regulated to no regulation, so all that is still up in the air, but I think the vast majority supports some level of legal gun ownership.
Please tell me, because I have a lot to learn in *nix, how would I figure out to use chmod to change permissions if I was previously unaware of the command name?
You said "change permissions", so maybe try "ch[tab][tab]", where you'll find a bunch of commands that change things (attributes, permissions, group, password, virtual terminal, etc). Though I've never got into the habit of using it, I believe the recommended way, via the shell at least, is to use "info". So, you would type "info", it'd bring up the default page, then you'd search for "permission" by typing "/" for search (which is a common idiom) then typing permission and hitting enter. The first entry on my system is for "File permissions: (coreutils)File permissions.". Hit enter on it. It gives some brief into and another menu. Select the "Symbolic Names", and then there's info on that and links to how to set, copy, change special bits, etc.
By the way, the command to change file permissions (or other system object permissions) in PS, set-acl...
How would you find that? I assume you'd start by typing "set-", but then what? Why would you think to type "acl" for file permissions?
And yes, I know what "acl" stands for, but that's no more clear to someone searching for the command than chmod. Even if you were looking for "acl", you'd still end up finding "chacl", which does the same job as chmod.
Aside from being easily caught when people weigh your competition bike and find it weight 3x everyone else's...
On a story a few months back, there was talk about standardized sports equipment, and bicycling came up. The bikes they use have a minimum weight requirement. Off the shelf bikes of somewhat decent quality (ballpark of $4000) can EASILY weight in at less than the pro weights.
I'm not sure how much you can get away with hiding, but they could definitely shave off a few pounds. If it's engineered well, the batteries and such could even contribute some to the structural integrity. You could easily spread out the battery load throughout the frame, so balance wouldn't be an issue.
People have also kept referring to the drive hub (where the crank goes) as a good place for the motor. Personally, I'd favor the rear wheel. There's plenty of room inside the hub of the rear wheel (internally geared hubs have shown us that). The crank hub has to endure significant stress from pedaling. Lastly, it's a whole lot easier to "lose" the rear wheel (just get a flat and change it out on the way).
I'm not sure why I'm feeding the trolls (troll being the summary itself).
I'd appreciate an actual "private" mode, but none of the browsers do what I'd expect from that. My expectation would be that the browser would behave as if it is a clean slate, not store anything to disk, possibly encrypt or at least attempt to hide memory contents, and possibly attempt to hide other identifying details (screen resolution, "agent" header string, plugin list, etc). Personally, I find little benefit to the make believe "private" mode in that it hides its actions from my own computer. I am not worried about other legitimate users of my computer finding out secrets about me (and if I was, I'd use something much more hidden than "private" mode - another vm with encrypted drives, powered off or in hibernate when I'm not using it).
With that in mind, this info seems to be quite an exaggerated diff between the various private mode expectations. Not that I care much as long as the behavior is what it is, but what I'd want to know is: * can normal, unprivileged user accounts access these history records? If not, then it's doing its job just about as well as any of the others.
Fuck. You are right. I didn't even read the thread yesterday cause it seemed like it should be on one of those "10 things you didn't know about something that will kill you" pages. This time I came here cause it's a dupe - that's the only reason. Ugh.
But so forgetful that you leave it in your carry-on accidentally? It's not like they changed the rule about firearms on planes recently...
They changed the rules on baggage. They're all charging for checked baggage now. I realize this wasn't a change made overnight, but, as a personal example, my mother and sister just realized the checked bag fee this past month. To save money, they'd "HAVE TO" carry on their bags.
Encouraging passengers to carry on baggage would more than account for this level of statistical change.
I, too, would like to see MUCH simpler tax codes. If someone is required to file them, then said person should be able to understand it (I'm mostly referring to personal taxes here). That's often not the case.
However, your solution:
You pay x% on profits after your expenses, period.
... leaves bigger holes than any that currently exist. Re-invest profit into the company by any means, or pay it out as bonuses to top execs, or just buy stuff. Make sure there's a small profit every couple years so you can stay incorporated, and the tax would end up as some infinitesimally small amount. Most of the laws had the best intentions at one point, like your comment, but those need to continually be patched, which results in the current situation.
It makes no sense as a desktop/educational OS right now...
Personally, I've wanted it since very near the same time it came out, but probably not the way some are envisioning it.
I run linux on the desktop, and have done so exclusively for over a decade. I have a laptop with Windows dual boot that I use a handful of times a year. Those times are what I really want desktop Android for, because, for whatever reason, some closed apps/services offer Android versions of stuff for which they do not offer Linux versions. A couple good examples are polycom conference software, MS Lync, and other online meeting tools (I can't remember which site... gotomeeting? or maybe it was the other one, but I can't remember its name). Entertainment software is another realm - all the various TV station apps (NBC, ABC, FX, Fox, SyFi, CC, etc), Netflix, etc. I can get good Android support for all those, but not under Linux. Running a desktop Android in a VM would be, IMO, a very handy bridge for those occasions.
For enterprise desktops, it's not suitable, at least not right now. I suspect that if Android ever gets to the point where it's near suitable in the enterprise desktop realm, it'll also be much more complex, and it'd lose some of the simple things that make it attractive for some of those niches today.
If someone contributed two lines of code to the kernel twenty years ago, and those two lines are still in use in Remix OS, then their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL.
How are they in violation of the GPL? You state these things as if you know what you're talking about, but I strongly suspect you have a weak understanding of the GPL. Re-distributing unmodified binaries is different from modified binaries, which are both different than modified source. In all cases, there is no requirement to make the source freely available via a public repository.
... so the Remix OS folks should get into full compliance as quickly as possible.
You can already get a 1 TB SSD for about $350. A 1 TB HDD costs about $50. That's a ratio of 7:1.
That's comparison favors the SSD, and it's still 7:1. Look at price per gb for various models/sizes. If you ignore performance, HDD's are still a very large way ahead.
There's very little reason for most average people to even be using HDDs at the moment apart from people who want to store giant media collections.
... or anything that takes up much space. Backups, photos, video's, movies, music, virtual machines, etc etc - all the stuff people actually use desktops for. IMO, it would be more accurate to say that there is a very good reason for the majority of people to be using at least one SSD, as they do bring significant performance gains, and you are no longer forced to do anything too complicated to make them usable/feasible (on drives = 32gb, it's a huge PITA to maintain your system and keep things under that size if you use it for your OS, and you can forget about making vm's on it or storing very much there either).
I do think/agree that SSD's will own the vast majority of the market in a decade, though there will still be legit uses for HDD's.
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
There's more than one objective, and the blanket statements are the only ones that get traction, so that's what is often used. In this case, for example, yes, it will land on people that agree completely, and it may even sway some that were ok with the current amount of surveillance. At the same time, it's going to soften the blow of accepting other candidates' positions. For example, if Trump said he wanted to keep it at the same level, then those that actually wanted less but had to choose between those two would be more ok to deal with the SNAFU. Sure, each candidate wants to win, but more important than that is that their party wins; and most important is that either R or D wins (which is a lock this time around).
Great example; batshit insane conclusion. It also has nothing to do with this branch of the thread. Read what I was replying to.
I would agree that the original designs for the secure payment systems for smart phones were great, even if they were on devices like that. However, corners are being cut now. For example, from what I can tell, Android Pay no longer requires the use of a separate chip to securely store the sensitive data (the secure element).
Hate replying to myself, but just enabled this "Skill": Alexa, ask the bartender, what's in a White Russian? When you're drunk and making drinks, do you really want to go rooting around on your computer, or trying to find your bartender app?
Personally, I've found some good uses for it when I got an Amazon Echo. FWIW, this isn't an ad.
I had expected to use some features much more, and I figured I probably wouldn't end up using it much. I have ended up using it more frequently than I thought, those it's still no more than a few times a day. Some example:
* while doing dishes, brushing my teeth, or toweling off from the shower, I might ask it for the weather, if it's going to rain today, what time is it, how long it will take me to get to work, etc (not all those at once... I usually have a general idea about most of them already, but just want to check on one of them).
* while working at the computer, I might ask it to do something for me... maybe turn off some lights, or play some music, or spell some word, or look up some fact. Those are all things I can do from the computer, but I'm busy typing something else - a quick question like those is easily handled by it at the same time I'm doing other stuff.
* All my grocery shopping lists are on it now (it has a built in shopping list, and a todo list). This is the thing I use most regularly. Ex. while making coffee in the morning, I run out of milk (or almost run out), and, while I'm still pouring it and putting it away and stirring my coffee, I just say, "alexa, add milk to my shopping list". Done. This has been the killer app for me. If this was all it did, it'd be worth it to me, and I know that sounds completely asinine, but that's why I felt like this was worth sharing:-)
I'd like to list a few things it's missing, but I recently learned about the new "Skills" feature. "Skills" are something devs/others can make, and then you use them by doing stuff like: * Alexa, ask Campbell's Kitchen what's for a recipe Alternatively: * Alexa, launch *... * Stop http://lovemyecho.com/2015/10/...
I note this because as soon as I got this thing, I really wanted it to send me a copy of the transcribed text somewhere so I could pick out bits and sometimes do stuff based on the text I got (like play my personal music collection, or turn on my HTPC and tuner and set the inputs and turn on the projector). However, it looks like that's all quite possible now. There are about 150 Skills though, and I haven't waded through them all.
Lower friction: Contactless card. Bump your ass into a wall-mounted terminal, place your purse on the checkout counter while your groceries are being bagged, fist-bump the cute little robot terminal while wearing a smartwatch, all sorts of ways to make the ritual "fun" and engaging. 2 seconds....
Except that's a fantasy and does not reflect reality at all.
You have to accept the charge via your phone. That's the only thing that keeps people from walking buy and taking all your money without ever touching you. That alone doesn't sound hard, but that means you have to take out your phone (could have taken out your wallet). Then you have to unlock it (or open your wallet). Then put the phone where the reader can read it and wait for those things to talk to each other (or swipe your card, which is, IMO, faster). Then accept the charge (or sign the terminal or receipt, or not if it's a small purchase). Then lock and return your phone (or put card back and put wallet in your pocket).
Chip+pin / Chip+sig / Contactless... none of those are really faster either. In fact, they're often slower. They're sold as faster so we'll use them. They're more secure and provide more protection for the retailer and the banks, but this isn't about ease of use at all.
Retailers did NOT accept the move to credit cards because people bought more. They accepted it so they didn't have to deal with checks or fraudulent cash, and a lot of retailers still don't accept cards, mostly due to the additional service fees that they're not allowed to pass onto the customer. If customers really didn't care about spending more when they used the cards versus cash (as you implied), then we would have been footing the bill for every transaction.
The last two replies got it wrong (IMO), so here goes on my attempt...
MFA (Multi Factor Auth). Sorry, I couldn't find an easy doc or example within my first few searches, so you'll have to trust me a bit. When you check out from some sites, such as newegg, if your bank supports the extra secure pay thingy (I can't remember its exact name), then newegg redirects you to your banks site. If you have it enabled, then you must enter some info for your bank so it can authenticate that you are the owner of the card, then it sends you back to the original site with some tokens it can use to verify that went through ok. If you don't have it enabled, you get the option to enable it at that time, or skip it and continue anyway.
The big shortfall there is that sites are not required to set up that support, so a rouge or less-professional site could still use your card without jumping through that hoop. However, that's the case for the real world as well - even retailers in the EU can, at their option, accept just the mag swipe, or even do a carbon rub of your card. The extra security protects the retailer and the bank - you don't get much say in protecting your credit card info.
There are also other online, alternative, payment methods that, supposedly, offer more security. PayPal, bitcoin, temporary CC numbers, etc. Regardless, there are solutions for that, but the physical world solution should not (IMO, and the opinion of the GP) be on some relatively insecure device where arbitrary software can be installed from the internet.
Even if it's true, IMO it reads more like support for running a node than a deterrent.
The story in short: * guy set up Tor exit node * months later, police seized his computer because his IP showed up in logs on a pedo site * 4 months after that, he got his computer back - they found no evidence of wrongdoing
Sucks to be inconvenienced and all that, but that's a much nicer outcome than I had expected for a story that was meant to discourage people from setting up exit nodes. For example, if the FBI takes your stuff based on some suspicion and finds nothing, then: 1. they'll probably take EVERYTHING electronic. Cameras, monitors, PC's, phones, etc. 2. you probably won't get anything back until about a decade after they've cleared you, and all that stuff will be worthless at that point.
4 months and they only took the computer? That seems, relatively, quite reasonable.
Except that all your examples are greatly exaggerated in both directions, to the point of being false.
You are not allowed to handle nuclear weapons, but government agencies can.
Only specific agencies, and only specific people in them, with loads of safeguards in place. Conversely, ordinary citizens *can* go to school and learn all about nukes and eventually handle very sensitive stuff - more safeguards and such, which is very similar.
You are not allowed to take the life of another, and yet government agencies can.
You can take the life of another in certain situations. Conversely, the government can not take lives willy-nilly, and especially not those of its law abiding citizens (this is true even in war on foreign soil - there are limits). Setting these up as polar opposites is disingenuous.
My contention is that government agencies are given additional rights in order for them to perform their obligations.
At least in the US, the government has no rights except what the people allow it (in theory, at least). They do not just get a bunch of extra rights that ordinary folks do not get. They actually have more restrictions (great example - first amendment, freedom of speech). That said, they seem to be running amok with very few people actually standing up to it.
In that program somewhere around 5% are lines that I actually coded. Everything else is snippets of code from Microsoft's help files, question/answer sites, and similar opensource programs found online. Unless they are checking for things like the fact that I included no error handling (since I am the only one that uses said program) I fail to see how this would work at all.
I strongly suspect this is precisely the kind of code that they will most easily be able to associate to individuals. Through their deep analysis of public code, I would strongly suspect that they have cached those segments, like any good search engine or data analysis would do. As such, they can diff and cut out any code that has been duplicated from elsewhere (just as they could with raw source code). Anything modified by you would remain. Because your coding style is, admittedly, quite different from that in the snippets, it will stand out as if it were glowing.
That said, if you were a more competent** programmer, then it'd be more difficult to distinguish your code from everything else as it'd all follow best practices. ** or some other appropriate word that means you code in similar style to well established design patterns
I am a tad bit curious what the real numbers may reveal. Hypothetically, if I was looking for a site to find someone of the opposite sex, and then I learned about some site that had such a large imbalance in my favor, that might sway me to join. I don't honestly believe that to be the case, but it makes me wish I could trust the stats just to fulfill my curiosity:-)
While I doubt this is a real product, if it can lift 400+lbs, then you could easily strap on a leaf blower and get plenty of trust in any direction you want. Surely, there are better and more efficient ways to do that, but horizontal thrust is not a significant problem once hover/lift and stability are solved.
Even with a worn code, you could have called Microsoft, explained the situation, and they would have granted you an activation code on the spot. You won't get that kind of customer service out of Canonical, I guarantee it.
You won't get that because there is no correlation. There are no activation steps or codes required for Ubuntu, so you would never have to call in the first place.
For hardware support, good luck calling Microsoft for that. That is vendor specific (ex. Dell, HP, Apple, System76, etc). If the vendor did not supply the hardware with the OS you have chosen, then you won't get the support your after either. That includes vendors selling a system with Windows 10 while you want to install your own copy of Windows XP, or buying an Apple and wanting to install Windows 2000 as the default OS, or a System76 Ubuntu laptop and wanting to install OSX, etc etc etc.
I'm sure there are anecdotes that show the opposite, but they're not the norm. Buy some product, and you get support for that product for a specific period of time for specific configurations.
FWIW, Linux has far more broad hardware support than Windows (as is available to the public... who knows what they support in their labs and such). I'm sure you were probably referring to Windows specific hardware, such as the old winmodems or the latest graphic cards or esoteric CAD hardware and such. However, there's a LOT of other hardware out there with entirely different cpu's and architecture that Linux supports but you won't get Windows on it. Ditto to a wide variety of niche software. True, there are no recent versions of Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office for Ubuntu, but the raw count of programs that aren't available on Linux (especially if you discount ones with equal or better counterparts) is quite low.
All that said, you're probably right that he probably could have called MS and got a one time activation code. Woop-de-do.
...Ubuntu is great. But didn't reach the 200M users target. Period.
The stats in the article are absolute bullshit, but that doesn't mean the target wasn't met. I'm quite curious what the real numbers are, though I understand it's impossible to get a completely accurate number. * counts of distinct os instances pulling updates from any official mirror? * counts of known installs? * counts of distinct os instances that hit their advertising search thing? * counts of repo mirrors being pulled (to estimate remote mirrors serving one or more other instances)? * ditto for alternative versions (things based on ubuntu)?
I suspect none of those will get the number up to 200M, but it wouldn't surprise me if it strongly implied a count somewhere in that neighborhood (maybe even more). (disclaimer, I did not RTFA)
What can you do to help stop this trade agreement...
... the answer is to join a mailing list?!?! Come on! I totally understand that the FSF is still getting their plan in order, but the editors shouldn't lead with it if there's no answer yet. It's like those awful news blurbs, "what common condiment could be killing you RIGHT NOW!?! Find out more during our broadcast tomorrow."
I also don't get why this was split into two. There's hardly any content in this one.. where's the rest of the interview?
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that eliminating guns DOES reduce (and significantly) gun violence.
But other than you being wrong, it's exactly the same.
Assuming you are right, the analogy still holds water. Guns are still legal (in many places). Use of guns to commit crimes is still illegal. Therefore, use of Torrents Time to purposefully infringe copyright should be illegal, but Torrents Time should (arguably) remain legal. This analogy isn't quite as solid, since many people think there should be varying levels of firearm regulation from completely outlawed to heavily regulated to no regulation, so all that is still up in the air, but I think the vast majority supports some level of legal gun ownership.
I'm not sure you chose the best examples...
Please tell me, because I have a lot to learn in *nix, how would I figure out to use chmod to change permissions if I was previously unaware of the command name?
You said "change permissions", so maybe try "ch[tab][tab]", where you'll find a bunch of commands that change things (attributes, permissions, group, password, virtual terminal, etc).
Though I've never got into the habit of using it, I believe the recommended way, via the shell at least, is to use "info". So, you would type "info", it'd bring up the default page, then you'd search for "permission" by typing "/" for search (which is a common idiom) then typing permission and hitting enter. The first entry on my system is for "File permissions: (coreutils)File permissions.". Hit enter on it. It gives some brief into and another menu. Select the "Symbolic Names", and then there's info on that and links to how to set, copy, change special bits, etc.
By the way, the command to change file permissions (or other system object permissions) in PS, set-acl...
How would you find that? I assume you'd start by typing "set-", but then what? Why would you think to type "acl" for file permissions?
And yes, I know what "acl" stands for, but that's no more clear to someone searching for the command than chmod. Even if you were looking for "acl", you'd still end up finding "chacl", which does the same job as chmod.
How the hell are you someone that's been on slashdot EVER and haven't been bombarded by "APK" posts.
Google "APK Hosts File Engine".
Aside from being easily caught when people weigh your competition bike and find it weight 3x everyone else's...
On a story a few months back, there was talk about standardized sports equipment, and bicycling came up.
The bikes they use have a minimum weight requirement. Off the shelf bikes of somewhat decent quality (ballpark of $4000) can EASILY weight in at less than the pro weights.
I'm not sure how much you can get away with hiding, but they could definitely shave off a few pounds. If it's engineered well, the batteries and such could even contribute some to the structural integrity. You could easily spread out the battery load throughout the frame, so balance wouldn't be an issue.
People have also kept referring to the drive hub (where the crank goes) as a good place for the motor. Personally, I'd favor the rear wheel. There's plenty of room inside the hub of the rear wheel (internally geared hubs have shown us that). The crank hub has to endure significant stress from pedaling. Lastly, it's a whole lot easier to "lose" the rear wheel (just get a flat and change it out on the way).
I'm not sure why I'm feeding the trolls (troll being the summary itself).
I'd appreciate an actual "private" mode, but none of the browsers do what I'd expect from that. My expectation would be that the browser would behave as if it is a clean slate, not store anything to disk, possibly encrypt or at least attempt to hide memory contents, and possibly attempt to hide other identifying details (screen resolution, "agent" header string, plugin list, etc).
Personally, I find little benefit to the make believe "private" mode in that it hides its actions from my own computer. I am not worried about other legitimate users of my computer finding out secrets about me (and if I was, I'd use something much more hidden than "private" mode - another vm with encrypted drives, powered off or in hibernate when I'm not using it).
With that in mind, this info seems to be quite an exaggerated diff between the various private mode expectations. Not that I care much as long as the behavior is what it is, but what I'd want to know is:
* can normal, unprivileged user accounts access these history records?
If not, then it's doing its job just about as well as any of the others.
Fuck. You are right. I didn't even read the thread yesterday cause it seemed like it should be on one of those "10 things you didn't know about something that will kill you" pages. This time I came here cause it's a dupe - that's the only reason. Ugh.
But so forgetful that you leave it in your carry-on accidentally? It's not like they changed the rule about firearms on planes recently...
They changed the rules on baggage. They're all charging for checked baggage now. I realize this wasn't a change made overnight, but, as a personal example, my mother and sister just realized the checked bag fee this past month. To save money, they'd "HAVE TO" carry on their bags.
Encouraging passengers to carry on baggage would more than account for this level of statistical change.
I, too, would like to see MUCH simpler tax codes. If someone is required to file them, then said person should be able to understand it (I'm mostly referring to personal taxes here). That's often not the case.
However, your solution:
You pay x% on profits after your expenses, period.
... leaves bigger holes than any that currently exist. Re-invest profit into the company by any means, or pay it out as bonuses to top execs, or just buy stuff. Make sure there's a small profit every couple years so you can stay incorporated, and the tax would end up as some infinitesimally small amount.
Most of the laws had the best intentions at one point, like your comment, but those need to continually be patched, which results in the current situation.
(regarding Android on the desktop)
It makes no sense as a desktop/educational OS right now...
Personally, I've wanted it since very near the same time it came out, but probably not the way some are envisioning it.
I run linux on the desktop, and have done so exclusively for over a decade. I have a laptop with Windows dual boot that I use a handful of times a year. Those times are what I really want desktop Android for, because, for whatever reason, some closed apps/services offer Android versions of stuff for which they do not offer Linux versions. A couple good examples are polycom conference software, MS Lync, and other online meeting tools (I can't remember which site... gotomeeting? or maybe it was the other one, but I can't remember its name). Entertainment software is another realm - all the various TV station apps (NBC, ABC, FX, Fox, SyFi, CC, etc), Netflix, etc. I can get good Android support for all those, but not under Linux.
Running a desktop Android in a VM would be, IMO, a very handy bridge for those occasions.
For enterprise desktops, it's not suitable, at least not right now. I suspect that if Android ever gets to the point where it's near suitable in the enterprise desktop realm, it'll also be much more complex, and it'd lose some of the simple things that make it attractive for some of those niches today.
If someone contributed two lines of code to the kernel twenty years ago, and those two lines are still in use in Remix OS, then their copyright is being violated by distributing binaries in violation of the GPL.
How are they in violation of the GPL? You state these things as if you know what you're talking about, but I strongly suspect you have a weak understanding of the GPL. Re-distributing unmodified binaries is different from modified binaries, which are both different than modified source. In all cases, there is no requirement to make the source freely available via a public repository.
... so the Remix OS folks should get into full compliance as quickly as possible.
And where is it that they are out of compliance?
You can already get a 1 TB SSD for about $350. A 1 TB HDD costs about $50. That's a ratio of 7:1.
That's comparison favors the SSD, and it's still 7:1. Look at price per gb for various models/sizes. If you ignore performance, HDD's are still a very large way ahead.
There's very little reason for most average people to even be using HDDs at the moment apart from people who want to store giant media collections.
... or anything that takes up much space. Backups, photos, video's, movies, music, virtual machines, etc etc - all the stuff people actually use desktops for.
IMO, it would be more accurate to say that there is a very good reason for the majority of people to be using at least one SSD, as they do bring significant performance gains, and you are no longer forced to do anything too complicated to make them usable/feasible (on drives = 32gb, it's a huge PITA to maintain your system and keep things under that size if you use it for your OS, and you can forget about making vm's on it or storing very much there either).
I do think/agree that SSD's will own the vast majority of the market in a decade, though there will still be legit uses for HDD's.
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
There's more than one objective, and the blanket statements are the only ones that get traction, so that's what is often used.
In this case, for example, yes, it will land on people that agree completely, and it may even sway some that were ok with the current amount of surveillance.
At the same time, it's going to soften the blow of accepting other candidates' positions. For example, if Trump said he wanted to keep it at the same level, then those that actually wanted less but had to choose between those two would be more ok to deal with the SNAFU.
Sure, each candidate wants to win, but more important than that is that their party wins; and most important is that either R or D wins (which is a lock this time around).
Great example; batshit insane conclusion.
It also has nothing to do with this branch of the thread. Read what I was replying to.
I would agree that the original designs for the secure payment systems for smart phones were great, even if they were on devices like that. However, corners are being cut now. For example, from what I can tell, Android Pay no longer requires the use of a separate chip to securely store the sensitive data (the secure element).
Hate replying to myself, but just enabled this "Skill": Alexa, ask the bartender, what's in a White Russian?
When you're drunk and making drinks, do you really want to go rooting around on your computer, or trying to find your bartender app?
Personally, I've found some good uses for it when I got an Amazon Echo. FWIW, this isn't an ad.
I had expected to use some features much more, and I figured I probably wouldn't end up using it much. I have ended up using it more frequently than I thought, those it's still no more than a few times a day. Some example:
* while doing dishes, brushing my teeth, or toweling off from the shower, I might ask it for the weather, if it's going to rain today, what time is it, how long it will take me to get to work, etc (not all those at once... I usually have a general idea about most of them already, but just want to check on one of them).
* while working at the computer, I might ask it to do something for me... maybe turn off some lights, or play some music, or spell some word, or look up some fact. Those are all things I can do from the computer, but I'm busy typing something else - a quick question like those is easily handled by it at the same time I'm doing other stuff.
* All my grocery shopping lists are on it now (it has a built in shopping list, and a todo list). This is the thing I use most regularly. Ex. while making coffee in the morning, I run out of milk (or almost run out), and, while I'm still pouring it and putting it away and stirring my coffee, I just say, "alexa, add milk to my shopping list". Done. This has been the killer app for me. If this was all it did, it'd be worth it to me, and I know that sounds completely asinine, but that's why I felt like this was worth sharing :-)
I'd like to list a few things it's missing, but I recently learned about the new "Skills" feature. "Skills" are something devs/others can make, and then you use them by doing stuff like: ...
* Alexa, ask Campbell's Kitchen what's for a recipe
Alternatively:
* Alexa, launch
*
* Stop
http://lovemyecho.com/2015/10/...
I note this because as soon as I got this thing, I really wanted it to send me a copy of the transcribed text somewhere so I could pick out bits and sometimes do stuff based on the text I got (like play my personal music collection, or turn on my HTPC and tuner and set the inputs and turn on the projector). However, it looks like that's all quite possible now. There are about 150 Skills though, and I haven't waded through them all.
Lower friction: Contactless card. Bump your ass into a wall-mounted terminal, place your purse on the checkout counter while your groceries are being bagged, fist-bump the cute little robot terminal while wearing a smartwatch, all sorts of ways to make the ritual "fun" and engaging. 2 seconds. ...
Except that's a fantasy and does not reflect reality at all.
You have to accept the charge via your phone. That's the only thing that keeps people from walking buy and taking all your money without ever touching you.
That alone doesn't sound hard, but that means you have to take out your phone (could have taken out your wallet).
Then you have to unlock it (or open your wallet).
Then put the phone where the reader can read it and wait for those things to talk to each other (or swipe your card, which is, IMO, faster).
Then accept the charge (or sign the terminal or receipt, or not if it's a small purchase).
Then lock and return your phone (or put card back and put wallet in your pocket).
Chip+pin / Chip+sig / Contactless... none of those are really faster either. In fact, they're often slower. They're sold as faster so we'll use them. They're more secure and provide more protection for the retailer and the banks, but this isn't about ease of use at all.
Retailers did NOT accept the move to credit cards because people bought more. They accepted it so they didn't have to deal with checks or fraudulent cash, and a lot of retailers still don't accept cards, mostly due to the additional service fees that they're not allowed to pass onto the customer. If customers really didn't care about spending more when they used the cards versus cash (as you implied), then we would have been footing the bill for every transaction.
The last two replies got it wrong (IMO), so here goes on my attempt...
MFA (Multi Factor Auth). Sorry, I couldn't find an easy doc or example within my first few searches, so you'll have to trust me a bit.
When you check out from some sites, such as newegg, if your bank supports the extra secure pay thingy (I can't remember its exact name), then newegg redirects you to your banks site. If you have it enabled, then you must enter some info for your bank so it can authenticate that you are the owner of the card, then it sends you back to the original site with some tokens it can use to verify that went through ok. If you don't have it enabled, you get the option to enable it at that time, or skip it and continue anyway.
The big shortfall there is that sites are not required to set up that support, so a rouge or less-professional site could still use your card without jumping through that hoop. However, that's the case for the real world as well - even retailers in the EU can, at their option, accept just the mag swipe, or even do a carbon rub of your card. The extra security protects the retailer and the bank - you don't get much say in protecting your credit card info.
There are also other online, alternative, payment methods that, supposedly, offer more security. PayPal, bitcoin, temporary CC numbers, etc. Regardless, there are solutions for that, but the physical world solution should not (IMO, and the opinion of the GP) be on some relatively insecure device where arbitrary software can be installed from the internet.
Even if it's true, IMO it reads more like support for running a node than a deterrent.
The story in short:
* guy set up Tor exit node
* months later, police seized his computer because his IP showed up in logs on a pedo site
* 4 months after that, he got his computer back - they found no evidence of wrongdoing
Sucks to be inconvenienced and all that, but that's a much nicer outcome than I had expected for a story that was meant to discourage people from setting up exit nodes. For example, if the FBI takes your stuff based on some suspicion and finds nothing, then:
1. they'll probably take EVERYTHING electronic. Cameras, monitors, PC's, phones, etc.
2. you probably won't get anything back until about a decade after they've cleared you, and all that stuff will be worthless at that point.
4 months and they only took the computer? That seems, relatively, quite reasonable.
Except that all your examples are greatly exaggerated in both directions, to the point of being false.
You are not allowed to handle nuclear weapons, but government agencies can.
Only specific agencies, and only specific people in them, with loads of safeguards in place. Conversely, ordinary citizens *can* go to school and learn all about nukes and eventually handle very sensitive stuff - more safeguards and such, which is very similar.
You are not allowed to take the life of another, and yet government agencies can.
You can take the life of another in certain situations. Conversely, the government can not take lives willy-nilly, and especially not those of its law abiding citizens (this is true even in war on foreign soil - there are limits). Setting these up as polar opposites is disingenuous.
My contention is that government agencies are given additional rights in order for them to perform their obligations.
At least in the US, the government has no rights except what the people allow it (in theory, at least). They do not just get a bunch of extra rights that ordinary folks do not get. They actually have more restrictions (great example - first amendment, freedom of speech). That said, they seem to be running amok with very few people actually standing up to it.
In that program somewhere around 5% are lines that I actually coded. Everything else is snippets of code from Microsoft's help files, question/answer sites, and similar opensource programs found online. Unless they are checking for things like the fact that I included no error handling (since I am the only one that uses said program) I fail to see how this would work at all.
I strongly suspect this is precisely the kind of code that they will most easily be able to associate to individuals.
Through their deep analysis of public code, I would strongly suspect that they have cached those segments, like any good search engine or data analysis would do. As such, they can diff and cut out any code that has been duplicated from elsewhere (just as they could with raw source code). Anything modified by you would remain.
Because your coding style is, admittedly, quite different from that in the snippets, it will stand out as if it were glowing.
That said, if you were a more competent** programmer, then it'd be more difficult to distinguish your code from everything else as it'd all follow best practices.
** or some other appropriate word that means you code in similar style to well established design patterns
Or at least 99% of the new female users.
I am a tad bit curious what the real numbers may reveal. :-)
Hypothetically, if I was looking for a site to find someone of the opposite sex, and then I learned about some site that had such a large imbalance in my favor, that might sway me to join. I don't honestly believe that to be the case, but it makes me wish I could trust the stats just to fulfill my curiosity
While I doubt this is a real product, if it can lift 400+lbs, then you could easily strap on a leaf blower and get plenty of trust in any direction you want. Surely, there are better and more efficient ways to do that, but horizontal thrust is not a significant problem once hover/lift and stability are solved.
Even with a worn code, you could have called Microsoft, explained the situation, and they would have granted you an activation code on the spot. You won't get that kind of customer service out of Canonical, I guarantee it.
You won't get that because there is no correlation. There are no activation steps or codes required for Ubuntu, so you would never have to call in the first place.
For hardware support, good luck calling Microsoft for that. That is vendor specific (ex. Dell, HP, Apple, System76, etc). If the vendor did not supply the hardware with the OS you have chosen, then you won't get the support your after either. That includes vendors selling a system with Windows 10 while you want to install your own copy of Windows XP, or buying an Apple and wanting to install Windows 2000 as the default OS, or a System76 Ubuntu laptop and wanting to install OSX, etc etc etc.
I'm sure there are anecdotes that show the opposite, but they're not the norm. Buy some product, and you get support for that product for a specific period of time for specific configurations.
FWIW, Linux has far more broad hardware support than Windows (as is available to the public... who knows what they support in their labs and such). I'm sure you were probably referring to Windows specific hardware, such as the old winmodems or the latest graphic cards or esoteric CAD hardware and such. However, there's a LOT of other hardware out there with entirely different cpu's and architecture that Linux supports but you won't get Windows on it. Ditto to a wide variety of niche software. True, there are no recent versions of Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office for Ubuntu, but the raw count of programs that aren't available on Linux (especially if you discount ones with equal or better counterparts) is quite low.
All that said, you're probably right that he probably could have called MS and got a one time activation code. Woop-de-do.
...Ubuntu is great. But didn't reach the 200M users target. Period.
The stats in the article are absolute bullshit, but that doesn't mean the target wasn't met. I'm quite curious what the real numbers are, though I understand it's impossible to get a completely accurate number.
* counts of distinct os instances pulling updates from any official mirror?
* counts of known installs?
* counts of distinct os instances that hit their advertising search thing?
* counts of repo mirrors being pulled (to estimate remote mirrors serving one or more other instances)?
* ditto for alternative versions (things based on ubuntu)?
I suspect none of those will get the number up to 200M, but it wouldn't surprise me if it strongly implied a count somewhere in that neighborhood (maybe even more).
(disclaimer, I did not RTFA)
What can you do to help stop this trade agreement...
... the answer is to join a mailing list?!?! Come on!
I totally understand that the FSF is still getting their plan in order, but the editors shouldn't lead with it if there's no answer yet. It's like those awful news blurbs, "what common condiment could be killing you RIGHT NOW!?! Find out more during our broadcast tomorrow."
I also don't get why this was split into two. There's hardly any content in this one.. where's the rest of the interview?