Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.
No, blatant propaganda is propaganda. I'm not sure if you're part of the propaganda machine, you're being fooled by it, or both, but you're part of the problem.
Oddly, you're disproving your own point: You're claiming to have some kind of access to objectivity-- at least to the point that you can absolutely judge the relative credibility of all news sources. And before you say, "nuh uh", you can only claim that two news sources are equally credible if you have an accurate judgement of their credibility. And not only are you somehow in touch with the source of all "objective truth" enough to say that all news organizations are equal, but you can even tell me what's going on in my own head, and that it's completely different from what I think is going on in my own head. Now that's a neat trick.
So go back and process things again. If things are all so relative and uncertain that no claim is more credible than any others, then why should anyone listen to you? Why can't any random person refute you thoroughly just by saying "nuh uh". Or if some sources are more credible than others, then do you think it might be possible that The New York Times is more credible than Infowars.
Nobody is suggesting that we trust any one source absolutely, but it doesn't follow that therefore all sources should be given a small and equal amount of trust. Some sources prove themselves to be more reliable than others, and when a group of those reliable sources are all saying the same things, it's worth listening. When a bunch of crackpot nut-jobs spout repeated nonsense, the smart response is to stop listening.
Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides.
That's some relativistic BS. Your argument is like saying, "Nobody is perfect, so we have to trust all people equally." There might be occasional instances of bias within any new outlet, but it doesn't follow that we should treat them all as equally reliable.
Real news organizations at least make an effort to weed out completely false or unsupported assertions. They make some effort to be fair. Maybe you shouldn't believe every single thing you read in the New York Times, Washington Post, or the BBC, but if something is reported as fact, there's probably some basis for it being reported as fact. New outlets like Fox News, Infowars, or Stormfront, on the other hand, are straight-up propaganda. If they report something as fact, it might coincidentally be factually true, but that's not why it's being reported. It's being reported because it reenforces some narrative that the person running that organization is pushing.
As, Mashiki pointed out, those 3 people from trump's campaign who were indicted were not indicted for anything to do with Russia.
The people from Trump's campaign were convicted of lying to the FBI about their connections to Russia. It doesn't make sense to say, "it has nothing to do with Russia, it was just lying to the FBI" when they were lying about Russia. Manifort is basically being investigated for money laundering to hide the payoffs he was receiving from Putin's cronies. Again, it's about Russia. Plus, there were a dozen Russians indicted for meddling with the campaign.
If that weren't bad enough, the convictions so far have been plea bargains, which means that the prosecution had evidence of worse crimes, but they offered some evidence against a bigger fish. So though we don't know exactly who did what yet, we know that several people in the Trump campaign had some kind of nefarious contacts with Russia that were worth lying to the FBI about. Also, that Mueller had evidence against them to convict of something worse that merely lying to the FBI, but that they got plea deals because they could prove that someone else in the Trump campaign had even more nefarious dealings with the Russians.
This could allow Deutsche Telekom to consolidate the combined company on its books...
Does that mean that the new joined company will keep T-Mobile's management?
Because I'll tell you what, I'm a T-Mobile customer, and I'm pretty happy. The coverage may not be quite as good as Verizon, but there are no hidden fees, no mysterious extra charges, no vague limitations. They don't really do market segmentation with deceptive pricing. They don't try to fight me if I just want to buy an unlocked phone, forgo their subsidy, and have a lower monthly price. The terms of their international roaming are pretty awesome. In the US, they pretty much set the standard for what a cell carrier should be.
Meanwhile, Sprint has been a disaster for years. Even setting aside all the public well-known stuff, I used to have a job that involved dealing with all the major carriers, and Sprint was the worst. They were disorganized. The people who worked there were awful. Their internal systems were poorly designed. That was several years ago, and maybe it got better, but I have no faith in that company.
So if the deal is that T-Mobile gets Sprint's infrastructure to add on to their own, to improve coverage, cool. Great. But if people from Sprint are going to be running anything, then this is very sad news.
Mozilla changed some things about their development and versioning, which resulted in their version numbers changing faster. However, I was making a joke about Microsoft skipping Windows 9, and going straight from Windows 8 to Windows 10.
Though it's also worth noting that, apparently, skipping version 9 wasn't all about marketing. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of cases where developers assumed that when a Windows version string included "Windows 9" it meant either Windows 95 or Windows 98. Using a string that included "Windows 9" would have broken a bunch of stuff. Unless that's just an urban myth.
I don't think it's that Google has been working on this for a year, and a year's work came up with new tab shapes. It's that Google has been making a bunch of incremental changes for the last year, and these tabs are the latest of those changes.
For example, they recently revised the UI for managing extensions. They're not huge changes. They don't drastically change the way you use Chrome. They're just GUI tweaks, seemingly aimed at making the interface design consistent across their products.
And in that sense, it's not at all like Microsoft. If they were like Microsoft, they'd suddenly jump to Chrome version 100, move all of the controls and options to a totally different place, force Desktop users to use the Android version of Chrome, and prompt you every day to set Gmail as your default mail account.
I think that this get into a larger economic problem. You're a market that isn't being served because companies don't believe it's profitable enough to do so.
Are they correct, that it's not profitable enough to build 4:3 laptops? Maybe. Who knows. There are logistical issues like standardization and developing the supply chain, but to some extent, these decisions are based on what a bunch of marketing people guess people will buy, and in what numbers.
First, that marketing calculation could be wrong because the marketing people make a bad guess. Maybe a lot more people would buy 4:3 screens, and the market research is leading people to a bad estimate. Second, maybe very few people would, but it's because the market is making bad judgements. So maybe there really aren't many people who will buy 4:3 screens, but it's because those people are wrong and making a bad decision.
But there's also another component of it: What do you do about the small markets that nobody is serving because it's "not worth it". Let's say the people who like 16:9 screens are perfectly right and smart, but either you're wrong, or you have different tastes, or you using your screen for a different use. Is there some way that our economic system is failing if that niche market isn't being satisfied?
I know some people are going to think that's a stupid question, on the logic that capitalism can't be wrong, and that if a niche market isn't being served it's because it's so niche that it shouldn't be served... or something like that. I'm just not so sure. I think you could argue that it's a failing of capitalism, at least our traditional view of capitalism. The success of so many Kickstarter campaigns is evidence that there are a lot of these niche markets where there's significant demand not being met through traditional financing methods.
And yes, I'm sure someone will point out that Kickstarter exists within our economic system, so bla bla bla, whatever.
Addressing isn't really the problem. The format of "username@domain" is already used for a lot of things, not just email, and including instant messaging.
I wouldn't suggest doing instant messaging email standards, though. Email protocols aren't great. It'd be better to develop a new set of standards for messaging, both email and instant messaging. The problem is, you'd need major vendors to buy into the same standards. You'd need Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and others to all agree to support the same standards, which isn't going to happen.
The problem here isn't technical, it's economic and political.
I believe both MacOS and iOS are Unix, large portions of which are open source. iOS isn't open in the sense that you can only install apps from their app store, but otherwise it's not that different.
If you're asking whether I'd support removing the ability to install non-AppStore apps on MacOS, then the answer is no. If I had the choice, I'd like the ability to install non-AppStore apps on iOS devices. However, that question has pretty much nothing to do with merging the code.
It's true that iOS is based off of MacOS, but I was under the impression that it was stripped down quite a bit. Also, I don't know if there are different optimizations to run on ARM instead of Intel chips. I don't think it's as simple as being the same OS with a modified UI.
I could be wrong. And of course, it depends on what you mean by "operating system". Is everything running on a Linux kernel the same OS? Arguably, I suppose, but I think most people would say that Chrome OS is a different operating system than Debian.
Yeah, I think Reddit is a lot better if you take a little time to choose your subreddit subscriptions. Like you said, if things are bad for you at/r/weiner_pretzels, move on. But also, if all you're interested in is/r/weiner_pretzels, subscribe to that and nothing else. You have that option.
However, that doesn't quite answer all the of questions and fix all of the problems. For one thing, there's the incessant "free speech" debate that pops up every time reddit bans a subreddit. Where do you draw the line between "allowing speech that you don't like" and promoting depravity? You don't want to go around censoring everyone, but at some point you have to draw a line. The way a site is built determines what it can be used for, and when you provide people with the use of the site, you have some moral responsibility for how it's used.
And these kinds of things only get worse when you consider that various groups are working to manipulate and weaponize these platforms for propaganda and information gathering. I'm not just talking about Russia. I'm sure other governments are doing it, and so are private companies. The internet is full of paid shills, astroturfing, trolls, and misinformation campaigns.
But there's also the problem of abuse. At one point, I got into an argument on reddit, and the person I had argued with started posting aggressive replies to anything I said on reddit. Suddenly, everything I posted immediately got hundreds of downvotes-- I'm not sure, but I assumed he somehow had a bunch of bot accounts. They had less protection from harassment back then, so I eventually deleted my account and made a new one.
I don't agree that there's no hope for reddit or that it has made the world a worse place. There's a lot of room for improvement, but a lot of reddit's problems are problems with the Internet in general.
Yeah, and also, I think he might largely be talking about the GUI. For what he's talking about, you could literally merge the two operating systems, because users don't know or care about that. We nerds know what an operating system is, but "users" only know the GUI.
Tim Cook has been talking for a while about not wanting to merge iOS and MacOS, and his reasons are always GUI related. He's basically saying, "A good touch interface will suck for desktop users. A good keyboard/mouse interface will suck on a tablet or phone. Rather than trying to make a combo tablet/desktop GUI that isn't very good at either, we'd rather maintain two different GUIs."
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why are we working on a carrier-based replacement for SMS at all? Building services into the fabric of cell carriers makes everything less transparent and portable, and opens opportunities for them to play hanky-panky with pricing and restrictions. In my view, carriers should accept a role as a dumb-pipe wireless Internet service, and services should be platform agnostic.
Could we just come up with a messaging standard that everyone can agree to? Get Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft all to agree on a set of protocols and standards. The same way that a Gmail user can email and Office 365 user, a user of Apple Messages should be able to message a Facebook user. Why is that so hard?
As far as I can tell, it's not. It's just that all these companies all want their own little walled gardens so that they can abuse their customers, or else are suffering from Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to connect to my post, but also it's not entirely true. For example, here in the US our government spends more than it receives in tax income. So the question isn't so much whether the payments are more than the tax revenue, but whether the payments are more than what we're currently already paying.
Plus, economics aren't really that simple. Part of what you'd have to look at is, what's happening with people living in poverty under the current system and what effect is that having on the economy, and then what would happen under UBI and how would that affect the economy?
For example, let's say a large number of people are turning to crime to survive. There are various ways that crime can cause a drag on an economy and increase government spending. You need more law enforcement and jails. You might see a loss of tourism because things are too dangerous. Injury and property damage cause a more direct economic loss.
That's just a very off-hand random example, but there can be so many secondary and tertiary effects of economic policy, and those effects can be influenced by culture or laws or outside economic factors. It's possible that an economic change costs the government more by $X but improves the GDP by $Y which means $Z in additional tax revenue. Over the long term, if Z > X, then the government can spend more money but still come out ahead. The whole thing isn't as simple as, "We need to run the government like I run my personal finances! Can't spend more than you make!"
It's also worth noting that it isn't generally isn't the nature of experiments to try one experiment to test an idea one time, and then abandon it. If an idea has any merit, you might try a few different methods and repeat the experiment a few times, see the results, and use information gathered from those results to perform a new experiment.
I say this because I'm sure a lot of people will say, "See? Universal Basic Income failed. People should just give up on the idea." The first design of an airplane didn't fly, but that doesn't necessarily mean airplanes can't work. The first iteration of a social program might be a disaster, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's time to give up.
In any case, we're getting ahead of ourselves because the study hasn't published the results. We don't know yet how successful the experiment was.
And I say all of this as someone who has a lot of doubts about the idea of Universal Basic Income. But I've been wrong before, and no doubt I'll be proven wrong again, about something or other (though maybe not this).
Ends with: It's basically Trump's fault that people in Silicon Valley are in a bubble.
More like there's one throw-away line in the middle saying maybe Trump is partially to blame, and then drops the idea.
Seems like you're being a bit sensitive. I guess he's just not being PC enough for you, and mentioning Trump hurt your feelings. He shouldn't mistreat such a delicate little snowflake.
You keep saying "it's impossible" without defining security, and your writing is just a bunch of excuses.
And you keep showing that you just don't understand security. I've offered a couple definitions with different levels of detail, but I'll try to rephrase: There is no such thing as "perfect security", not even theoretically, not even conceptually. What people are looking for when they're looking for "perfect security" is something that cannot be breached through any attack vector.
No, you can't provide perfect security for a SQL database. Your argument shows a stunning lack of insight. What's the perfect version of SQL that you'll be running that has no vulnerabilities? What perfect OS will it be running on? What perfect users will be using it, who are completely honest and have perfect judgement, not subject to social engineering? It's not possible to configure a SQL database in such a way that the data in it will not ever be accessed by any unauthorized people.
And the fact that you think you are able to configure a SQL database so that no one can compromise it through technical means leads me to think that you specifically are ill suited to try. Yeah, sure, I'm sure you can follow some best practices for setting up a database and install some OS patches, preventing a lot of obvious known attack vectors. You might be a fairly competent sysadmin. But clearly you have a poor understanding of security, and shouldn't be assuming that you understand what goes into providing real security to a whole system..
As an IT person, I'd love to see ReactOS get to the point of being reliably and thoroughly compatible with Windows XP, even if it were only a VM.
It'd solve a real problem: Sometimes I have clients with old Windows apps that they need to run, but don't run on Windows versions newer than XP. It's more common than you might think. One way or another, you end up trying to support an old unsupportable OS that you can't get a valid license for.
It didn't sound to me like a crazy plot to restore French pride. They're not saying, "We'll reinvent telecommunications!"
It sounds more like the French government saying, "Maybe it's not a good idea for our government communications to be going through services operated in other countries, subject to the laws of other countries, and at the mercy of those countries' intelligence agencies."
Given that there are secure open-source alternatives, it seems like common sense to me.
Yeah, that's the great thing about FOSS, is you don't need to reinvent the wheel. Just take the wheel someone else invented, and make the changes you want.
Still, when they talk about setting up a service, I'm guessing they're not just talking about the software. You can't just audit the code and "call it good". You have to figure out how to deploy it, e.g. what servers are going to run it, and how are you going to make sure the service is resilient and secure.
Yeah, I don't think software version numbers are necessarily (or should be) meaningless. However, I think it's true that version numbers are arbitrary. Maybe that's what Torvalds meant.
It may not seem like much of a distinction, but the point is that developers can number their software any way that they like. The actual numbers are not objectively an indicator of anything. If the developer has no reason for the number they've chosen, then the version number has no meaning. However, if they have a reason, then that reason becomes the meaning of the new version number.
I don't know anything about Axios and I'm not arguing for or against trusting it generally. But...
The story is saying that the Pentagon announced there was an increase in Russian trolling. The Pentagon did indeed announce an increase in Russian trolling. Loads of other news sources have reported the same thing.
You can be annoyed that the Pentagon didn't provide evidence, but it doesn't really make sense to start bad-mouthing Axios for accurately reporting what the Pentagon said without also providing the evidence that the Pentagon didn't provide. And anyway, I don't see how you can doubt that there's a lot of propaganda going around. Whether it's from the Russians or other people, there's a lot of propaganda.
I also think you need a new service to go along with upgraded email/usenet: Identity management.
It's one of the things that Facebook and Google do that these other systems don't. Both provide some degree of single-sign-on for consumers, and allows you to link your activity online together into a coherent profile, showing your status and activity across multiple platforms. There needs to be a set of open industry standards that allow any number of allows your activity to be discoverable and verifiable if you want it to be. However, it should also enable you to be anonymous when you want to be, and allow you to subscribe to only the kinds of activities you're interested in.
I think the bigger mistake was marketing it as a competitor to the Amazon Echo. From what I understand, it's really more in line with a high-end Sonos device with a Siri-based voice interface. You're right that the addition of Siri is probably unnecessary, but it's because I doubt any of the people who are buying it are buying it for Siri.
Now admittedly, my opinion is that all of this "virtual assistant AI" stuff is gimmicky nonsense. It's not advanced enough to be truly useful. Like VR in the 90s, the effect is neat enough to capture people's imagination, but it doesn't really do anything that isn't done easier, better, and more accurately than via conventional interfaces.
If I got a self-deleting email claiming it'd be gone soon the first thing I'd do is pick up my cell phone and make a picture. Why? I don't know why, but it'd be freaky.
Well that's a bit silly and childish.
I've seen these kinds of emails in use, and the way I've seen it used has been in business settings, for things like, "Hey, I'm sending you this confidential information. Please note that this email will expire in 48 hours. Make a copy of this information for your own records." Again, it's not to prevent the recipient from having continued access to the information if they want it. It's ineffective for that purpose. The purpose is more to prevent information from leaking to third parties in the event of an email breach.
The biggest value of these things isn't even about the fact that it can be set to expire. Email is totally insecure, and these kinds of messages allow for some security. The actual message isn't sent in plaintext via SMTP and isn't stored on the recipient's server. Enabling the message to expire is a bit of a handy side-effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything out side of your political safe space just so happens to be fake news.
No, blatant propaganda is propaganda. I'm not sure if you're part of the propaganda machine, you're being fooled by it, or both, but you're part of the problem.
Oddly, you're disproving your own point: You're claiming to have some kind of access to objectivity-- at least to the point that you can absolutely judge the relative credibility of all news sources. And before you say, "nuh uh", you can only claim that two news sources are equally credible if you have an accurate judgement of their credibility. And not only are you somehow in touch with the source of all "objective truth" enough to say that all news organizations are equal, but you can even tell me what's going on in my own head, and that it's completely different from what I think is going on in my own head. Now that's a neat trick.
So go back and process things again. If things are all so relative and uncertain that no claim is more credible than any others, then why should anyone listen to you? Why can't any random person refute you thoroughly just by saying "nuh uh". Or if some sources are more credible than others, then do you think it might be possible that The New York Times is more credible than Infowars.
Nobody is suggesting that we trust any one source absolutely, but it doesn't follow that therefore all sources should be given a small and equal amount of trust. Some sources prove themselves to be more reliable than others, and when a group of those reliable sources are all saying the same things, it's worth listening. When a bunch of crackpot nut-jobs spout repeated nonsense, the smart response is to stop listening.
Boiling it all down, the fake news argument is a consequence of increasingly politicized and biased press on ALL sides.
That's some relativistic BS. Your argument is like saying, "Nobody is perfect, so we have to trust all people equally." There might be occasional instances of bias within any new outlet, but it doesn't follow that we should treat them all as equally reliable.
Real news organizations at least make an effort to weed out completely false or unsupported assertions. They make some effort to be fair. Maybe you shouldn't believe every single thing you read in the New York Times, Washington Post, or the BBC, but if something is reported as fact, there's probably some basis for it being reported as fact. New outlets like Fox News, Infowars, or Stormfront, on the other hand, are straight-up propaganda. If they report something as fact, it might coincidentally be factually true, but that's not why it's being reported. It's being reported because it reenforces some narrative that the person running that organization is pushing.
As, Mashiki pointed out, those 3 people from trump's campaign who were indicted were not indicted for anything to do with Russia.
The people from Trump's campaign were convicted of lying to the FBI about their connections to Russia. It doesn't make sense to say, "it has nothing to do with Russia, it was just lying to the FBI" when they were lying about Russia. Manifort is basically being investigated for money laundering to hide the payoffs he was receiving from Putin's cronies. Again, it's about Russia. Plus, there were a dozen Russians indicted for meddling with the campaign.
If that weren't bad enough, the convictions so far have been plea bargains, which means that the prosecution had evidence of worse crimes, but they offered some evidence against a bigger fish. So though we don't know exactly who did what yet, we know that several people in the Trump campaign had some kind of nefarious contacts with Russia that were worth lying to the FBI about. Also, that Mueller had evidence against them to convict of something worse that merely lying to the FBI, but that they got plea deals because they could prove that someone else in the Trump campaign had even more nefarious dealings with the Russians.
This could allow Deutsche Telekom to consolidate the combined company on its books...
Does that mean that the new joined company will keep T-Mobile's management?
Because I'll tell you what, I'm a T-Mobile customer, and I'm pretty happy. The coverage may not be quite as good as Verizon, but there are no hidden fees, no mysterious extra charges, no vague limitations. They don't really do market segmentation with deceptive pricing. They don't try to fight me if I just want to buy an unlocked phone, forgo their subsidy, and have a lower monthly price. The terms of their international roaming are pretty awesome. In the US, they pretty much set the standard for what a cell carrier should be.
Meanwhile, Sprint has been a disaster for years. Even setting aside all the public well-known stuff, I used to have a job that involved dealing with all the major carriers, and Sprint was the worst. They were disorganized. The people who worked there were awful. Their internal systems were poorly designed. That was several years ago, and maybe it got better, but I have no faith in that company.
So if the deal is that T-Mobile gets Sprint's infrastructure to add on to their own, to improve coverage, cool. Great. But if people from Sprint are going to be running anything, then this is very sad news.
Mozilla changed some things about their development and versioning, which resulted in their version numbers changing faster. However, I was making a joke about Microsoft skipping Windows 9, and going straight from Windows 8 to Windows 10.
Though it's also worth noting that, apparently, skipping version 9 wasn't all about marketing. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of cases where developers assumed that when a Windows version string included "Windows 9" it meant either Windows 95 or Windows 98. Using a string that included "Windows 9" would have broken a bunch of stuff. Unless that's just an urban myth.
I don't think it's that Google has been working on this for a year, and a year's work came up with new tab shapes. It's that Google has been making a bunch of incremental changes for the last year, and these tabs are the latest of those changes.
For example, they recently revised the UI for managing extensions. They're not huge changes. They don't drastically change the way you use Chrome. They're just GUI tweaks, seemingly aimed at making the interface design consistent across their products.
And in that sense, it's not at all like Microsoft. If they were like Microsoft, they'd suddenly jump to Chrome version 100, move all of the controls and options to a totally different place, force Desktop users to use the Android version of Chrome, and prompt you every day to set Gmail as your default mail account.
I think that this get into a larger economic problem. You're a market that isn't being served because companies don't believe it's profitable enough to do so.
Are they correct, that it's not profitable enough to build 4:3 laptops? Maybe. Who knows. There are logistical issues like standardization and developing the supply chain, but to some extent, these decisions are based on what a bunch of marketing people guess people will buy, and in what numbers.
First, that marketing calculation could be wrong because the marketing people make a bad guess. Maybe a lot more people would buy 4:3 screens, and the market research is leading people to a bad estimate. Second, maybe very few people would, but it's because the market is making bad judgements. So maybe there really aren't many people who will buy 4:3 screens, but it's because those people are wrong and making a bad decision.
But there's also another component of it: What do you do about the small markets that nobody is serving because it's "not worth it". Let's say the people who like 16:9 screens are perfectly right and smart, but either you're wrong, or you have different tastes, or you using your screen for a different use. Is there some way that our economic system is failing if that niche market isn't being satisfied?
I know some people are going to think that's a stupid question, on the logic that capitalism can't be wrong, and that if a niche market isn't being served it's because it's so niche that it shouldn't be served... or something like that. I'm just not so sure. I think you could argue that it's a failing of capitalism, at least our traditional view of capitalism. The success of so many Kickstarter campaigns is evidence that there are a lot of these niche markets where there's significant demand not being met through traditional financing methods.
And yes, I'm sure someone will point out that Kickstarter exists within our economic system, so bla bla bla, whatever.
Addressing isn't really the problem. The format of "username@domain" is already used for a lot of things, not just email, and including instant messaging.
I wouldn't suggest doing instant messaging email standards, though. Email protocols aren't great. It'd be better to develop a new set of standards for messaging, both email and instant messaging. The problem is, you'd need major vendors to buy into the same standards. You'd need Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and others to all agree to support the same standards, which isn't going to happen.
The problem here isn't technical, it's economic and political.
I believe both MacOS and iOS are Unix, large portions of which are open source. iOS isn't open in the sense that you can only install apps from their app store, but otherwise it's not that different.
If you're asking whether I'd support removing the ability to install non-AppStore apps on MacOS, then the answer is no. If I had the choice, I'd like the ability to install non-AppStore apps on iOS devices. However, that question has pretty much nothing to do with merging the code.
It's true that iOS is based off of MacOS, but I was under the impression that it was stripped down quite a bit. Also, I don't know if there are different optimizations to run on ARM instead of Intel chips. I don't think it's as simple as being the same OS with a modified UI.
I could be wrong. And of course, it depends on what you mean by "operating system". Is everything running on a Linux kernel the same OS? Arguably, I suppose, but I think most people would say that Chrome OS is a different operating system than Debian.
Yeah, I think Reddit is a lot better if you take a little time to choose your subreddit subscriptions. Like you said, if things are bad for you at /r/weiner_pretzels, move on. But also, if all you're interested in is /r/weiner_pretzels, subscribe to that and nothing else. You have that option.
However, that doesn't quite answer all the of questions and fix all of the problems. For one thing, there's the incessant "free speech" debate that pops up every time reddit bans a subreddit. Where do you draw the line between "allowing speech that you don't like" and promoting depravity? You don't want to go around censoring everyone, but at some point you have to draw a line. The way a site is built determines what it can be used for, and when you provide people with the use of the site, you have some moral responsibility for how it's used.
And these kinds of things only get worse when you consider that various groups are working to manipulate and weaponize these platforms for propaganda and information gathering. I'm not just talking about Russia. I'm sure other governments are doing it, and so are private companies. The internet is full of paid shills, astroturfing, trolls, and misinformation campaigns.
But there's also the problem of abuse. At one point, I got into an argument on reddit, and the person I had argued with started posting aggressive replies to anything I said on reddit. Suddenly, everything I posted immediately got hundreds of downvotes-- I'm not sure, but I assumed he somehow had a bunch of bot accounts. They had less protection from harassment back then, so I eventually deleted my account and made a new one.
I don't agree that there's no hope for reddit or that it has made the world a worse place. There's a lot of room for improvement, but a lot of reddit's problems are problems with the Internet in general.
Yeah, and also, I think he might largely be talking about the GUI. For what he's talking about, you could literally merge the two operating systems, because users don't know or care about that. We nerds know what an operating system is, but "users" only know the GUI.
Tim Cook has been talking for a while about not wanting to merge iOS and MacOS, and his reasons are always GUI related. He's basically saying, "A good touch interface will suck for desktop users. A good keyboard/mouse interface will suck on a tablet or phone. Rather than trying to make a combo tablet/desktop GUI that isn't very good at either, we'd rather maintain two different GUIs."
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why are we working on a carrier-based replacement for SMS at all? Building services into the fabric of cell carriers makes everything less transparent and portable, and opens opportunities for them to play hanky-panky with pricing and restrictions. In my view, carriers should accept a role as a dumb-pipe wireless Internet service, and services should be platform agnostic.
Could we just come up with a messaging standard that everyone can agree to? Get Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft all to agree on a set of protocols and standards. The same way that a Gmail user can email and Office 365 user, a user of Apple Messages should be able to message a Facebook user. Why is that so hard?
As far as I can tell, it's not. It's just that all these companies all want their own little walled gardens so that they can abuse their customers, or else are suffering from Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to connect to my post, but also it's not entirely true. For example, here in the US our government spends more than it receives in tax income. So the question isn't so much whether the payments are more than the tax revenue, but whether the payments are more than what we're currently already paying.
Plus, economics aren't really that simple. Part of what you'd have to look at is, what's happening with people living in poverty under the current system and what effect is that having on the economy, and then what would happen under UBI and how would that affect the economy?
For example, let's say a large number of people are turning to crime to survive. There are various ways that crime can cause a drag on an economy and increase government spending. You need more law enforcement and jails. You might see a loss of tourism because things are too dangerous. Injury and property damage cause a more direct economic loss.
That's just a very off-hand random example, but there can be so many secondary and tertiary effects of economic policy, and those effects can be influenced by culture or laws or outside economic factors. It's possible that an economic change costs the government more by $X but improves the GDP by $Y which means $Z in additional tax revenue. Over the long term, if Z > X, then the government can spend more money but still come out ahead. The whole thing isn't as simple as, "We need to run the government like I run my personal finances! Can't spend more than you make!"
It's also worth noting that it isn't generally isn't the nature of experiments to try one experiment to test an idea one time, and then abandon it. If an idea has any merit, you might try a few different methods and repeat the experiment a few times, see the results, and use information gathered from those results to perform a new experiment.
I say this because I'm sure a lot of people will say, "See? Universal Basic Income failed. People should just give up on the idea." The first design of an airplane didn't fly, but that doesn't necessarily mean airplanes can't work. The first iteration of a social program might be a disaster, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's time to give up.
In any case, we're getting ahead of ourselves because the study hasn't published the results. We don't know yet how successful the experiment was.
And I say all of this as someone who has a lot of doubts about the idea of Universal Basic Income. But I've been wrong before, and no doubt I'll be proven wrong again, about something or other (though maybe not this).
Ends with: It's basically Trump's fault that people in Silicon Valley are in a bubble.
More like there's one throw-away line in the middle saying maybe Trump is partially to blame, and then drops the idea.
Seems like you're being a bit sensitive. I guess he's just not being PC enough for you, and mentioning Trump hurt your feelings. He shouldn't mistreat such a delicate little snowflake.
You keep saying "it's impossible" without defining security, and your writing is just a bunch of excuses.
And you keep showing that you just don't understand security. I've offered a couple definitions with different levels of detail, but I'll try to rephrase: There is no such thing as "perfect security", not even theoretically, not even conceptually. What people are looking for when they're looking for "perfect security" is something that cannot be breached through any attack vector.
No, you can't provide perfect security for a SQL database. Your argument shows a stunning lack of insight. What's the perfect version of SQL that you'll be running that has no vulnerabilities? What perfect OS will it be running on? What perfect users will be using it, who are completely honest and have perfect judgement, not subject to social engineering? It's not possible to configure a SQL database in such a way that the data in it will not ever be accessed by any unauthorized people.
And the fact that you think you are able to configure a SQL database so that no one can compromise it through technical means leads me to think that you specifically are ill suited to try. Yeah, sure, I'm sure you can follow some best practices for setting up a database and install some OS patches, preventing a lot of obvious known attack vectors. You might be a fairly competent sysadmin. But clearly you have a poor understanding of security, and shouldn't be assuming that you understand what goes into providing real security to a whole system..
As an IT person, I'd love to see ReactOS get to the point of being reliably and thoroughly compatible with Windows XP, even if it were only a VM.
It'd solve a real problem: Sometimes I have clients with old Windows apps that they need to run, but don't run on Windows versions newer than XP. It's more common than you might think. One way or another, you end up trying to support an old unsupportable OS that you can't get a valid license for.
It didn't sound to me like a crazy plot to restore French pride. They're not saying, "We'll reinvent telecommunications!"
It sounds more like the French government saying, "Maybe it's not a good idea for our government communications to be going through services operated in other countries, subject to the laws of other countries, and at the mercy of those countries' intelligence agencies."
Given that there are secure open-source alternatives, it seems like common sense to me.
Yeah, that's the great thing about FOSS, is you don't need to reinvent the wheel. Just take the wheel someone else invented, and make the changes you want.
Still, when they talk about setting up a service, I'm guessing they're not just talking about the software. You can't just audit the code and "call it good". You have to figure out how to deploy it, e.g. what servers are going to run it, and how are you going to make sure the service is resilient and secure.
Yeah, I don't think software version numbers are necessarily (or should be) meaningless. However, I think it's true that version numbers are arbitrary. Maybe that's what Torvalds meant.
It may not seem like much of a distinction, but the point is that developers can number their software any way that they like. The actual numbers are not objectively an indicator of anything. If the developer has no reason for the number they've chosen, then the version number has no meaning. However, if they have a reason, then that reason becomes the meaning of the new version number.
I don't know anything about Axios and I'm not arguing for or against trusting it generally. But...
The story is saying that the Pentagon announced there was an increase in Russian trolling. The Pentagon did indeed announce an increase in Russian trolling. Loads of other news sources have reported the same thing.
You can be annoyed that the Pentagon didn't provide evidence, but it doesn't really make sense to start bad-mouthing Axios for accurately reporting what the Pentagon said without also providing the evidence that the Pentagon didn't provide. And anyway, I don't see how you can doubt that there's a lot of propaganda going around. Whether it's from the Russians or other people, there's a lot of propaganda.
I also think you need a new service to go along with upgraded email/usenet: Identity management.
It's one of the things that Facebook and Google do that these other systems don't. Both provide some degree of single-sign-on for consumers, and allows you to link your activity online together into a coherent profile, showing your status and activity across multiple platforms. There needs to be a set of open industry standards that allow any number of allows your activity to be discoverable and verifiable if you want it to be. However, it should also enable you to be anonymous when you want to be, and allow you to subscribe to only the kinds of activities you're interested in.
I think the bigger mistake was marketing it as a competitor to the Amazon Echo. From what I understand, it's really more in line with a high-end Sonos device with a Siri-based voice interface. You're right that the addition of Siri is probably unnecessary, but it's because I doubt any of the people who are buying it are buying it for Siri.
Now admittedly, my opinion is that all of this "virtual assistant AI" stuff is gimmicky nonsense. It's not advanced enough to be truly useful. Like VR in the 90s, the effect is neat enough to capture people's imagination, but it doesn't really do anything that isn't done easier, better, and more accurately than via conventional interfaces.
If I got a self-deleting email claiming it'd be gone soon the first thing I'd do is pick up my cell phone and make a picture. Why? I don't know why, but it'd be freaky.
Well that's a bit silly and childish.
I've seen these kinds of emails in use, and the way I've seen it used has been in business settings, for things like, "Hey, I'm sending you this confidential information. Please note that this email will expire in 48 hours. Make a copy of this information for your own records." Again, it's not to prevent the recipient from having continued access to the information if they want it. It's ineffective for that purpose. The purpose is more to prevent information from leaking to third parties in the event of an email breach.
The biggest value of these things isn't even about the fact that it can be set to expire. Email is totally insecure, and these kinds of messages allow for some security. The actual message isn't sent in plaintext via SMTP and isn't stored on the recipient's server. Enabling the message to expire is a bit of a handy side-effect.