> The entire population of the UK knows that Sikhs aren't Muslims and has known for over two hundred years. Why is the population of your country so fucking ignorant?
Did you mean "why is the population of your country so fucking ignorant *on things that don't apply to their daily lives*?"
Because that would make sense. The UK is the size of maybe like two states or something- it's about 1/40th the size of America. America has fewer Sihks than the UK does, despite this roughly 40x difference in size. Further, the Sikhs are mostly limited to some of the populous areas on the coast- they aren't mixed throughout the entire nation. This means that in the UK, you will meet a Sikh an order of magnitude more often than you will in the States, and many places in the states you can go, you'd have to drive for 12 hours to have a real chance of meeting a Sikh- and most of the time, you don't need to drive for those 12 hours for any reason. The UK is so small that of course you'll see more of it- it's like asking a Texan if they know what's going on in Texas.
Meanwhile, there are more Muslims in the US than there are Muslims in the UK, though again, the percentage difference is large- you'll run into more Muslims walking around the UK than you will in America.
This means that while people in the UK know the difference because it matters to them, it's mostly an international affair for Americans. One quarter of humanity is a believer in Islam (second only to Christianity by numbers), around 1,600 millon or something. There are like 30 million Sikhs worldwide.
Ignorant, eh? Can you name all 50 states? How many extant Indian tribes can you name? Maybe you could do ok there, maybe not, but if you do, it will be because you know more about America than you do some other country, because America has more relevance to you than *most* countries do.
The fact that not everyone is an expert at every single thing doesn't give anyone the moral right to abuse the fuck out of them for that fact.
> Oh yea, Word doesn't run there.:)
Something not running under Linux is not the fault of the OS. It's a fucking WINDOWS PROGRAM. Made by the company that makes WINDOWS. It's Microsoft's fault that there's no Linux version of Word. The default assumption for a Windows program is not that it runs on every fucking OS. The fact that Linux even TRIES to support Windows programs, when Windows has no such support for Linux, is a giant argument for Linux, and against Microsoft. It's disgusting that you would imply that this is somehow a Linux issue. Just so foul.
> it actually runs the vast majority of XP programs just fine
Sure, and Linux runs the vast majority of Windows programs just fine, through WINE. But if you need or want a program that doesn't work, the bitching begins. I have no problem googling a bunch of people running a Virtual PC environment to make their XP era apps work, and some don't function even under that.
> No, it does not.
Sure it runs most things. Most is over half- an easy bar to straddle.
> Uh huh, Microsoft didn't do anything to actually make their platform better or popular they just won the lottery.
I didn't say that at all. Can you find that? No. All you got is a straw man and a personal attack.
Microsoft has a massive userbase for several reasons. A giant part of that is the long period of time they had a functionality and usability advantage over the competitors. But that was a long time ago.
I'm not really convinced that the binary compatibility part is that accurate, but I can't dismiss it trivially. I will say Windows has issues supporting binaries from just a few years ago, but I just never seem to have the back portability problems on Linux that Windows has- but with so much of Linux being able to be recompiled to be optimized and perfect for whatever we're doing NOW, it's kind of a hard comparison.
Yes, of course you'd be happy with a version of Windows that could be attached to the internet safely, but now that it's not in Microsoft's interest to provide that, I guess you get to write letters or something until they finally decide to fix their shit. Maybe they will, but if they do, it will be entirely because people make noise about it. The joke is, if they DO this, you'll be like "see, they aren't so bad" to the very people who convinced them against their "better" judgment, and if they don't, you'll end up with some nest of scripts that you BELIEVE offers you privacy. Hell, right now your Windows 7 is leaking crazy amounts of data based on the telemetry updates pushed last spring that they only turned on in the summer- unless you wusa-ed them away, which you may or may not have done- it's possible to turn this shit off in 7 with only a few dumb steps, probably. Definitely not in 10.
Here's the "no" part: It's trivial to turn off the ONE place that Ubuntu can send your searches from. It's a search bar that defaults to an internet search. Microsoft has that too, and it's trivial to turn off- and no one cares that Microsoft does it. I suspect most OSes have a bar that can be set to do an internet search, or a local search.
Here's the "incorrect" part: Ubuntu is turning this off as a default feature, based on feedback.
Here's the "FUCK YOU" part: Fuck you for making this false equivalence. Ubuntu is not all of Linux, and even if their one goddamned thing that they fucked up was impossible to turn off or meant to be damaging, it wouldn't matter because Ubuntu isn't even the most common distro- Mint is. Bitching about Ubuntu is like bitching about the shitware that comes on a Lenovo- Lenovo is not Windows, and Ubuntu is not Linux. Every time someone links this, I actually wonder if they are shilling, because there's literally no way that these things are equivalent. Read the Windows EULA, where it says that they get your keystrokes, voice input, file system, file DATA, contacts, phone calls, envelope information on all comms, envelope information on all use, which programs you run, when you run them. Go check out all the things you have to turn off to disable this- you set some stuff in the GUI, but you aren't even a quarter done. You gotta go in and turn off every other goddamned thing on the command line with wusa, you gotta go edit a bunch of registry stuff, you have to disable some services and remove some other services, and of course, you need an external router firewall to block packets that Microsoft makes ignore your firewall rules and hosts file. To fucking bring up a default-on internet search bar with a trivial opt out is disingenuous, to pretend that Ubuntu is all of Linux is retarded, and to compare this to Microsofts full use case harvesting is libelous.
> When it comes to ease of use, performance and backwards compatibility, Windows kills Linux all day long. And it always will.
Windows requires a massive multistep procedure to not leak data like crazy to Microsoft. Fixing it requires command line garbage, scripts, etc. Linux doesn't require any of that configuration- out of the box it just works. Windows you have to dick around with the wusa package manager and that binary registry just to get a fraction of the security and privacy that Linux has for free.
But lets go further:
Performance- Linux outperforms Windows at almost every task an OS does. The exception is if you write a game just to support Windows APIs, as many games do. Microsoft didn't do anything to make their platform perform better- far from it. They have a large userbase, so many developers jump through hoops to support it. The same thing applies to drivers- Microsoft didn't write those, third party companies did, and if the Linux version is ever less than the Windows version at something, it's the fault of those companies.
Backwards compatibility- I'm really not aware of older Linux programs failing to work on modern Linux. Maybe, somewhere, that's true- I certainly don't see it though. Linux comes packed in with standard utilities dating back to the damned 70s for fucks sake. Windows struggles just to support shit from the Windows XP era. Linux is vastly more backwards compatible than Windows- hell, it even supports programs written for stuff from prior decades BEFORE IT EXISTED.
It always will- Nothing you've said is true. What Windows has is a big user base. That's the limit of its power. It can't even run fucking bash and it's 2015- every real OS has supported that for over a decade. It's a joke of an OS with holes at every level, unreadable binary bullshit for config files, random hex strings in random places a mile deep in a HKEY_CURRENT_BULLSHIT, a terrible command line package manager, a shitty shell that tries to look like DOS and fails, random idiotic access controls that protect viruses but not users, and an entire industry built to find and remove the malicious shitware that infests the platform. Linux runs MOST windows programs, and MANY windows games. Windows can't run a single fucking Linux binary without a goddamned VM!
Here's what Windows has: a big userbase. This means that some developers just make Windows versions of shit, and never even compile a Linux version- this means that there are many windows only programs, games especially. But that's not something Windows did. Microsoft doesn't write all those games. Microsoft doesn't even write all the goddamned drivers.
> But will it be enough for gamers to choose a Linux distribution as their gaming platform?
That's not the point of putting a game on Linux. What this means is that, if you are running Linux, you can play this game. This is GREAT news. The issue facing Linux gamers isn't that there are no good games- it's that of the games made, many never get a Linux version. This is a great game that is getting a Linux version. That's seriously cool!
Most gamers have at least one game that they can't make work on Linux- this means that Street Fighter V will NOT be one of those annoying games. Solid.
Even the summary says it's a juvenile detention center, not a jail. That's a lot better than a jail. He shouldn't have been there either, of course, but no reason to blow it out of proportion.
The "confusing a Sikh for a Muslim" thing is darkly amusing, and on the Internet everyone knows about Sikhs, and offline almost no one does. But like, even if he was a Muslim, it doesn't change the story. If he was a white Christian it would STILL be a story about overreaction and mandatory "zero tolerance" bullshit in schools, just without the possible racism or religious bigotry, and wouldn't be national news- but it would still require a fix, as it has for years.
Heh, it's going to take multiple teams of well trained (some probably genius level) engineers to formally prove what every man in the land understands at 16: the traffic laws cannot be taken as strict instructions, because they do not function as written in many cases.
Anyway, I'm glad this hangup is happening now- if it happened after adoption, rest assured No, It Is The Drivers Who Are Wrong would be the interpretation.
> Several years ago sure. Typically minutes with todays hashing rate.
Like, this is just ludicrous. You can just browse the net and see people complaining about it RIGHT NOW. Just getting one confirmation can take half an hour trivially, and you need multiple normally.
> In almost every case someone is basically trying to take the form of a bank.
Which broadly seems necessary unless everyone is expected to hold the entire ledger of all transactions from the history of time. There's workarounds, but they all require trust- and everyone who trusts any of these things gets fucked. That's the rule.
> You can't easily move large amounts of cash around, though.
The ability to move large amounts of bitcoins around is a cross of feature and bug. The comparison I was responding to was "oh, of course people run off with the bitcoins all the time, it's just like cash". That's a silly comparison. In the minds of its defenders, bitcoin is "like cash" when defending its ability to be stolen, "like checks" when defending its really long transaction times, "like fiat currency [as envisioned by someone with no trust at all in the banking system]" when dealing with the fact that it's a centralized currency, and "like any other commodity" when dealing with the fact that it has massive value fluctuations. But it's not like any of these things- it just takes the shitty parts of all of them, checks all the boxes, and off it goes.
> Bitcoin can be easier to use than dealing with a bank
Really can it? I mean, if Alice wants to pay Bob 2 Bitcoin:
Optional Step 1A: Alice buys bitcoins from someone else, or some exchange, or whatever. This often involves a bank. Optional Step 1B: Alice instead buys bitcoins in person, setup like some kind of strange drug deal. These appear to be safe... so far...
Step 2: Alice has bitcoins. If Alice has them in an exchange, Alice must log into the exchange, which is more or the same complexity than keeping them in a bank, and issue the transfer to Bob. If Alice has them in her wallet, she can transfer them directly, but her wallet has to have been synced up with every transaction in the history of bitcoin, a ledger that grows constantly.
Step 3: Wait for confirmation, which can take anywhere from several minutes to several hours. If you wait for some preliminary thing, Alice could have been just spoofing the transaction, and if you wait for the whole thing it can take just ANY long amount of time (and the people keeping this system are financially motivated to make the queue take along time, to get those fees).
> Bitcoin largely eliminates banks as middlemen Installing some anonymous future thieves guild is not a particular improvement. Nor is this often true, unless you are exchanging bitcoin in person.
1- Why are you changing the game to "settlement"? No one cares how long it takes to write a check to clear your credit card balance. Does debit card "settlement" take months? The point is that cash, check, and plastic all take less time than bitcoin to do a goddamned thing with, and all of them have recourse in event of fraud. "3"- Comparing it to cash is silly. Yes, it can be stolen, like cash. But you don't have to keep all your dollars in cash, whereas you DO have to keep all your bitcoin in bitcoin. Cash is anonymous, instant, can be guarded or hidden trivially, doesn't require electricity to work, doesn't require a functioning internet to work, and doesn't require a huge server farm in China to work- and can be stolen. Bitcoin is sorta anonymous, maybe, and the rest isn't true, except the stealing part. "4"- I don't need to mount some amazing defense of our money supply in order to point out the numerous problems in bitcoin. Bitcoin seems a very early and problem prone solution to a problem that few people have a lot of, and many people have a little of. Whatever the problems are with fiat currency, they are trivial compared to the strange and destructive environment that is bitcoin.
Also, "Bitcoin is not created for your Grama"... a currency that requires you to be some crypto anarchist cyberpunk guy in order to function at all (before the smarter crypto anarchist cyberpunk guy steals all your shit) is an idea too insane for most novels.
Bitcoin is real for SOME businesses who operate online. It's not feasible for anyone else, and it is most DEFINITELY not feasible for everyone.
There's just so MANY reasons why bitcoin has issues. I'll list a few, and maybe someone can pop in with more.
1- Bitcoin transactions can take hours to complete, and in no cases do they complete fast. The global transactions per second possible is really low (like less than 20), compared to thousands for credit cards / etc. In *practice* the total transactions per second possible now is less than five. 2- To speed up the transactions to even the theoretical max would require a bunch of random people to agree on standards, but with a low limit they find that people will "bribe" the system by enclosing a transaction fee into their transaction. This moves the transaction higher in the priority (because the processors stand to get some payment). That's not inherently awful, but it means that any time someone wants to speed stuff up for everyone, the people doing the processing stand to lose money- so, of course, they don't want this to happen. 3- Everyone who touches this stuff seems to turn into some kind of thief. It's like dark magic. Feds bust DPR, one of them steals his shit. Mt Gox takes off with everyone's cash, or a hacker does, or who knows, the point is it is gone. It's all gone, every time. Put bitcoins in this jar, I have a plan. Oops, the plan was to take the jar. 4- The people sound absolutely insane. I'm a libertarian, and they sound insane to me- imagine how all this screed sounds to someone who isn't even of that persuasion. 5- A ton of bitcoin are locked up by the person or people who premined it, who may or may not be the businessman who got investigated, or who knows. The whole thing is shrouded in ludicrous amounts of secrecy.
Bitcoin has a niche for now, but this is very volatile and backed by nothing except scarcity. It exists solely because there's no good way to transfer money anonymously without meeting in person- literally any government in the world could tank the price by offering a way to transfer their currency anonymously.
So it's a currency that takes a premium above the market share to buy, takes a premium to trade with, takes minutes at BEST to confirm a transaction, usually involves a transaction hit on the sell, and involves a fee to pay to the miners on any transaction- and everyone involved at the high level is both fully invested and fully delusional. Oh, and the price is ludicrously volatile. And everyone who you trust immediately turns into bats and flies away.
This is a really dumb headline, and I'm surprised it has so many people on the bandwagon about it. You nailed it entirely, but its actually more than one- not that this makes any difference at all.
What's going on is not spoilers- there's whole places devoted to posting spoilers. This is a reaction to a sustained effort of the trolls to spoil the movie. You'll be reading a comment about something else and find out Vader is Luke's father inline just like that. Or the tags used to organize stuff will themselves not be tags, but spoilers. Or the trolls will direct message people with a spoiler, so if you busted open your email and some jackass had an innocuous looking thing that was Star Wars spoilers, etc. Because of the latency between input and understanding in text, you could easily read a whole sentence before realizing what it says, etc.
And OF COURSE this is just in the sections that are being hit by this.
The headline is a lie. There's whole places on that site where the spoilers are EVERYWHERE, deliberately. Certain forums on the site are banning is users who try to push spoilers out to people, such as direct messaging people spoilers, and putting them in the "movies" section of the site (the sections are user defined).
Also I think the ban isn't even site wide.
Basically, if you go to the movies section and post star wars spoilers, you get banned from that section. In fact MANY sections have that rule, because of COURSE the trollchanners are all over trying to spoil the movie.
I disagree. That's like claiming that glibc is a big gaming platform or something. A PS4 game is a PS4 game, the fact that part of it is BSD doesn't help you if you are running Free BSD and wondering why no one ever ports their Windows / Xbone / PS4 game to your OS.
> Can someone point to the anything in the environment today that still shows signs of damage from leaded gasoline?
Depends- possibly people. There's a few competing theories as to why violent crime fell so sharply, and one of them has to do with the sudden lack of lead exposure, especially in places with high traffic and reasonably low ventilation- cities.
Getting rid of leaded gasoline was a very needed and necessary thing- or rather, cutting it back dramatically was.
When cars went from relatively uncommon to extremely common, increasing by an order of magnitude, at the same time that miles driven per person year went way up, the lead went from some kind of rounding error to a problem of moderate seriousness, and it probably still has some effects today. If it had been shitcanned in the 50s, that would probably have been averted, and by then engine tech had had enough time to progress too. But once it was enshrined in practice it took a long time to weed out, as the other comments have pointed out.
' J. R. McNeill, an environmental historian, opines that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history." '
Anyway, it's always been a bit of an unfair slam. Leaded gasoline only became an issue when the car number went from the 7.5 million that were around when TEL was being made, to the over 100 million that were around the time that leaded ramped down in the mid 70s. The miles driven per person were also way lower back then- because most people had to get around without a car, everything was set up for that. If you had it to do all over again, you'd probably STILL use leaded gasoline until about 1955 or so. However, at least everyone knew lead was bad for you back then- not so with Freon's very hard to verify environmental impact, which wasn't understood for a lot longer.
> An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job.
I'm sad you are being modded down a bit because I think your response is interesting for sure.
As has been pointed out- this is NOT the majority opinion. And frankly, it isn't even mine. If you put Sylvester Stallone holding a gun on the poster, I'm going to see that movie in the theater on opening week. Same with any of the action stars I like. In my opinion, movies that exist to tell a specific story are the exception, and they certainly don't need name brand actors, or actors that "always play the same role", but if it's a movie that falls into the more general template of "vehicle to showcase Vin Diesel punching people", then the star is quite literally the point, and if the movie happens to actually be good aside from that, then awesome. But it's not a requirement.
> Would they also like to force everyone to buy guns that can only shoot blank ammunition?
Probably. This is a sustained fight to eliminate the bill of rights in practice and adopt a European-style set of laws that can be changed by the legislative branch at any time- if they are willing to openly declare war on the first and fourth amendments, and install their agents in your firmware (which is arguably in violation of the third), why would the second amendment be any more sacred to them to the rest of that inconvenient bill of rights?
> Forbes is broken for me unless I go through the effort of fixing it, I guess.
Correct, it's a shit site. Each url currently (they change the details about monthly) points to some garbagebutt thing like what you found, that conditionally loads the rest of the site. Their current festival of poop works ok with uBlock Origin, but it utterly fails with noscript (even allowing all their hundred random malware domains). I'm at the point where I have three browsers open (currently three different browsers, but you can easily make them all the same browser with different home directories). Forbes links get pasted into Pale Moon, which is set to allow scripts, but which I judge as rather less likely to be subject to all the zillion 0 day javascript nonsense. It's still risky, of course.
Of course it takes you to the "welcome page", I said it was still a Forbes link. Why would I give you that warning otherwise?
What it does is eventually resolve to the article, which had presumably changed destination urls or something- the original one went to the proper html name, but in an improper directory, hence 404.
Slashdot Mirror
This is correct. Just as windows is an in-code implementation of the Windows API, so is WINE.
> The entire population of the UK knows that Sikhs aren't Muslims and has known for over two hundred years. Why is the population of your country so fucking ignorant?
Did you mean "why is the population of your country so fucking ignorant *on things that don't apply to their daily lives*?"
Because that would make sense. The UK is the size of maybe like two states or something- it's about 1/40th the size of America. America has fewer Sihks than the UK does, despite this roughly 40x difference in size. Further, the Sikhs are mostly limited to some of the populous areas on the coast- they aren't mixed throughout the entire nation. This means that in the UK, you will meet a Sikh an order of magnitude more often than you will in the States, and many places in the states you can go, you'd have to drive for 12 hours to have a real chance of meeting a Sikh- and most of the time, you don't need to drive for those 12 hours for any reason. The UK is so small that of course you'll see more of it- it's like asking a Texan if they know what's going on in Texas.
Meanwhile, there are more Muslims in the US than there are Muslims in the UK, though again, the percentage difference is large- you'll run into more Muslims walking around the UK than you will in America.
This means that while people in the UK know the difference because it matters to them, it's mostly an international affair for Americans. One quarter of humanity is a believer in Islam (second only to Christianity by numbers), around 1,600 millon or something. There are like 30 million Sikhs worldwide.
Ignorant, eh?
Can you name all 50 states? How many extant Indian tribes can you name? Maybe you could do ok there, maybe not, but if you do, it will be because you know more about America than you do some other country, because America has more relevance to you than *most* countries do.
> The majority of computer users don't care.
The fact that not everyone is an expert at every single thing doesn't give anyone the moral right to abuse the fuck out of them for that fact.
> Oh yea, Word doesn't run there. :)
Something not running under Linux is not the fault of the OS. It's a fucking WINDOWS PROGRAM. Made by the company that makes WINDOWS. It's Microsoft's fault that there's no Linux version of Word. The default assumption for a Windows program is not that it runs on every fucking OS. The fact that Linux even TRIES to support Windows programs, when Windows has no such support for Linux, is a giant argument for Linux, and against Microsoft. It's disgusting that you would imply that this is somehow a Linux issue. Just so foul.
> it actually runs the vast majority of XP programs just fine
Sure, and Linux runs the vast majority of Windows programs just fine, through WINE. But if you need or want a program that doesn't work, the bitching begins. I have no problem googling a bunch of people running a Virtual PC environment to make their XP era apps work, and some don't function even under that.
> No, it does not.
Sure it runs most things. Most is over half- an easy bar to straddle.
> Uh huh, Microsoft didn't do anything to actually make their platform better or popular they just won the lottery.
I didn't say that at all. Can you find that? No. All you got is a straw man and a personal attack.
Microsoft has a massive userbase for several reasons. A giant part of that is the long period of time they had a functionality and usability advantage over the competitors. But that was a long time ago.
I'm not really convinced that the binary compatibility part is that accurate, but I can't dismiss it trivially. I will say Windows has issues supporting binaries from just a few years ago, but I just never seem to have the back portability problems on Linux that Windows has- but with so much of Linux being able to be recompiled to be optimized and perfect for whatever we're doing NOW, it's kind of a hard comparison.
Yes, of course you'd be happy with a version of Windows that could be attached to the internet safely, but now that it's not in Microsoft's interest to provide that, I guess you get to write letters or something until they finally decide to fix their shit. Maybe they will, but if they do, it will be entirely because people make noise about it. The joke is, if they DO this, you'll be like "see, they aren't so bad" to the very people who convinced them against their "better" judgment, and if they don't, you'll end up with some nest of scripts that you BELIEVE offers you privacy. Hell, right now your Windows 7 is leaking crazy amounts of data based on the telemetry updates pushed last spring that they only turned on in the summer- unless you wusa-ed them away, which you may or may not have done- it's possible to turn this shit off in 7 with only a few dumb steps, probably. Definitely not in 10.
> Ubuntu much
No, incorrect, and FUCK YOU.
Here's the "no" part:
It's trivial to turn off the ONE place that Ubuntu can send your searches from. It's a search bar that defaults to an internet search. Microsoft has that too, and it's trivial to turn off- and no one cares that Microsoft does it. I suspect most OSes have a bar that can be set to do an internet search, or a local search.
Here's the "incorrect" part:
Ubuntu is turning this off as a default feature, based on feedback.
Here's the "FUCK YOU" part:
Fuck you for making this false equivalence. Ubuntu is not all of Linux, and even if their one goddamned thing that they fucked up was impossible to turn off or meant to be damaging, it wouldn't matter because Ubuntu isn't even the most common distro- Mint is. Bitching about Ubuntu is like bitching about the shitware that comes on a Lenovo- Lenovo is not Windows, and Ubuntu is not Linux. Every time someone links this, I actually wonder if they are shilling, because there's literally no way that these things are equivalent. Read the Windows EULA, where it says that they get your keystrokes, voice input, file system, file DATA, contacts, phone calls, envelope information on all comms, envelope information on all use, which programs you run, when you run them. Go check out all the things you have to turn off to disable this- you set some stuff in the GUI, but you aren't even a quarter done. You gotta go in and turn off every other goddamned thing on the command line with wusa, you gotta go edit a bunch of registry stuff, you have to disable some services and remove some other services, and of course, you need an external router firewall to block packets that Microsoft makes ignore your firewall rules and hosts file. To fucking bring up a default-on internet search bar with a trivial opt out is disingenuous, to pretend that Ubuntu is all of Linux is retarded, and to compare this to Microsofts full use case harvesting is libelous.
Stop fudding.
> When it comes to ease of use, performance and backwards compatibility, Windows kills Linux all day long. And it always will.
Windows requires a massive multistep procedure to not leak data like crazy to Microsoft. Fixing it requires command line garbage, scripts, etc. Linux doesn't require any of that configuration- out of the box it just works. Windows you have to dick around with the wusa package manager and that binary registry just to get a fraction of the security and privacy that Linux has for free.
But lets go further:
Performance- Linux outperforms Windows at almost every task an OS does. The exception is if you write a game just to support Windows APIs, as many games do. Microsoft didn't do anything to make their platform perform better- far from it. They have a large userbase, so many developers jump through hoops to support it. The same thing applies to drivers- Microsoft didn't write those, third party companies did, and if the Linux version is ever less than the Windows version at something, it's the fault of those companies.
Backwards compatibility- I'm really not aware of older Linux programs failing to work on modern Linux. Maybe, somewhere, that's true- I certainly don't see it though. Linux comes packed in with standard utilities dating back to the damned 70s for fucks sake. Windows struggles just to support shit from the Windows XP era. Linux is vastly more backwards compatible than Windows- hell, it even supports programs written for stuff from prior decades BEFORE IT EXISTED.
It always will- Nothing you've said is true. What Windows has is a big user base. That's the limit of its power. It can't even run fucking bash and it's 2015- every real OS has supported that for over a decade. It's a joke of an OS with holes at every level, unreadable binary bullshit for config files, random hex strings in random places a mile deep in a HKEY_CURRENT_BULLSHIT, a terrible command line package manager, a shitty shell that tries to look like DOS and fails, random idiotic access controls that protect viruses but not users, and an entire industry built to find and remove the malicious shitware that infests the platform. Linux runs MOST windows programs, and MANY windows games. Windows can't run a single fucking Linux binary without a goddamned VM!
Here's what Windows has: a big userbase. This means that some developers just make Windows versions of shit, and never even compile a Linux version- this means that there are many windows only programs, games especially. But that's not something Windows did. Microsoft doesn't write all those games. Microsoft doesn't even write all the goddamned drivers.
> But will it be enough for gamers to choose a Linux distribution as their gaming platform?
That's not the point of putting a game on Linux. What this means is that, if you are running Linux, you can play this game. This is GREAT news. The issue facing Linux gamers isn't that there are no good games- it's that of the games made, many never get a Linux version. This is a great game that is getting a Linux version. That's seriously cool!
Most gamers have at least one game that they can't make work on Linux- this means that Street Fighter V will NOT be one of those annoying games. Solid.
Even the summary says it's a juvenile detention center, not a jail. That's a lot better than a jail. He shouldn't have been there either, of course, but no reason to blow it out of proportion.
The "confusing a Sikh for a Muslim" thing is darkly amusing, and on the Internet everyone knows about Sikhs, and offline almost no one does. But like, even if he was a Muslim, it doesn't change the story. If he was a white Christian it would STILL be a story about overreaction and mandatory "zero tolerance" bullshit in schools, just without the possible racism or religious bigotry, and wouldn't be national news- but it would still require a fix, as it has for years.
Heh, it's going to take multiple teams of well trained (some probably genius level) engineers to formally prove what every man in the land understands at 16: the traffic laws cannot be taken as strict instructions, because they do not function as written in many cases.
Anyway, I'm glad this hangup is happening now- if it happened after adoption, rest assured No, It Is The Drivers Who Are Wrong would be the interpretation.
> Several years ago sure. Typically minutes with todays hashing rate.
Like, this is just ludicrous. You can just browse the net and see people complaining about it RIGHT NOW. Just getting one confirmation can take half an hour trivially, and you need multiple normally.
> In almost every case someone is basically trying to take the form of a bank.
Which broadly seems necessary unless everyone is expected to hold the entire ledger of all transactions from the history of time. There's workarounds, but they all require trust- and everyone who trusts any of these things gets fucked. That's the rule.
> You can't easily move large amounts of cash around, though.
The ability to move large amounts of bitcoins around is a cross of feature and bug. The comparison I was responding to was "oh, of course people run off with the bitcoins all the time, it's just like cash". That's a silly comparison. In the minds of its defenders, bitcoin is "like cash" when defending its ability to be stolen, "like checks" when defending its really long transaction times, "like fiat currency [as envisioned by someone with no trust at all in the banking system]" when dealing with the fact that it's a centralized currency, and "like any other commodity" when dealing with the fact that it has massive value fluctuations. But it's not like any of these things- it just takes the shitty parts of all of them, checks all the boxes, and off it goes.
> Bitcoin can be easier to use than dealing with a bank
Really can it? I mean, if Alice wants to pay Bob 2 Bitcoin:
Optional Step 1A: Alice buys bitcoins from someone else, or some exchange, or whatever. This often involves a bank.
Optional Step 1B: Alice instead buys bitcoins in person, setup like some kind of strange drug deal. These appear to be safe... so far...
Step 2: Alice has bitcoins. If Alice has them in an exchange, Alice must log into the exchange, which is more or the same complexity than keeping them in a bank, and issue the transfer to Bob. If Alice has them in her wallet, she can transfer them directly, but her wallet has to have been synced up with every transaction in the history of bitcoin, a ledger that grows constantly.
Step 3: Wait for confirmation, which can take anywhere from several minutes to several hours. If you wait for some preliminary thing, Alice could have been just spoofing the transaction, and if you wait for the whole thing it can take just ANY long amount of time (and the people keeping this system are financially motivated to make the queue take along time, to get those fees).
> Bitcoin largely eliminates banks as middlemen
Installing some anonymous future thieves guild is not a particular improvement. Nor is this often true, unless you are exchanging bitcoin in person.
I'm pretty sure you are serious, so I'll respond.
1- Why are you changing the game to "settlement"? No one cares how long it takes to write a check to clear your credit card balance. Does debit card "settlement" take months? The point is that cash, check, and plastic all take less time than bitcoin to do a goddamned thing with, and all of them have recourse in event of fraud.
"3"- Comparing it to cash is silly. Yes, it can be stolen, like cash. But you don't have to keep all your dollars in cash, whereas you DO have to keep all your bitcoin in bitcoin. Cash is anonymous, instant, can be guarded or hidden trivially, doesn't require electricity to work, doesn't require a functioning internet to work, and doesn't require a huge server farm in China to work- and can be stolen. Bitcoin is sorta anonymous, maybe, and the rest isn't true, except the stealing part.
"4"- I don't need to mount some amazing defense of our money supply in order to point out the numerous problems in bitcoin. Bitcoin seems a very early and problem prone solution to a problem that few people have a lot of, and many people have a little of. Whatever the problems are with fiat currency, they are trivial compared to the strange and destructive environment that is bitcoin.
Also, "Bitcoin is not created for your Grama"... a currency that requires you to be some crypto anarchist cyberpunk guy in order to function at all (before the smarter crypto anarchist cyberpunk guy steals all your shit) is an idea too insane for most novels.
> Bitcoin is already real for business.
Bitcoin is real for SOME businesses who operate online. It's not feasible for anyone else, and it is most DEFINITELY not feasible for everyone.
There's just so MANY reasons why bitcoin has issues. I'll list a few, and maybe someone can pop in with more.
1- Bitcoin transactions can take hours to complete, and in no cases do they complete fast. The global transactions per second possible is really low (like less than 20), compared to thousands for credit cards / etc. In *practice* the total transactions per second possible now is less than five.
2- To speed up the transactions to even the theoretical max would require a bunch of random people to agree on standards, but with a low limit they find that people will "bribe" the system by enclosing a transaction fee into their transaction. This moves the transaction higher in the priority (because the processors stand to get some payment). That's not inherently awful, but it means that any time someone wants to speed stuff up for everyone, the people doing the processing stand to lose money- so, of course, they don't want this to happen.
3- Everyone who touches this stuff seems to turn into some kind of thief. It's like dark magic. Feds bust DPR, one of them steals his shit. Mt Gox takes off with everyone's cash, or a hacker does, or who knows, the point is it is gone. It's all gone, every time. Put bitcoins in this jar, I have a plan. Oops, the plan was to take the jar.
4- The people sound absolutely insane. I'm a libertarian, and they sound insane to me- imagine how all this screed sounds to someone who isn't even of that persuasion.
5- A ton of bitcoin are locked up by the person or people who premined it, who may or may not be the businessman who got investigated, or who knows. The whole thing is shrouded in ludicrous amounts of secrecy.
Bitcoin has a niche for now, but this is very volatile and backed by nothing except scarcity. It exists solely because there's no good way to transfer money anonymously without meeting in person- literally any government in the world could tank the price by offering a way to transfer their currency anonymously.
So it's a currency that takes a premium above the market share to buy, takes a premium to trade with, takes minutes at BEST to confirm a transaction, usually involves a transaction hit on the sell, and involves a fee to pay to the miners on any transaction- and everyone involved at the high level is both fully invested and fully delusional. Oh, and the price is ludicrously volatile. And everyone who you trust immediately turns into bats and flies away.
This is a really dumb headline, and I'm surprised it has so many people on the bandwagon about it. You nailed it entirely, but its actually more than one- not that this makes any difference at all.
What's going on is not spoilers- there's whole places devoted to posting spoilers. This is a reaction to a sustained effort of the trolls to spoil the movie. You'll be reading a comment about something else and find out Vader is Luke's father inline just like that. Or the tags used to organize stuff will themselves not be tags, but spoilers. Or the trolls will direct message people with a spoiler, so if you busted open your email and some jackass had an innocuous looking thing that was Star Wars spoilers, etc. Because of the latency between input and understanding in text, you could easily read a whole sentence before realizing what it says, etc.
And OF COURSE this is just in the sections that are being hit by this.
The headline is a lie. There's whole places on that site where the spoilers are EVERYWHERE, deliberately. Certain forums on the site are banning is users who try to push spoilers out to people, such as direct messaging people spoilers, and putting them in the "movies" section of the site (the sections are user defined).
Also I think the ban isn't even site wide.
Basically, if you go to the movies section and post star wars spoilers, you get banned from that section. In fact MANY sections have that rule, because of COURSE the trollchanners are all over trying to spoil the movie.
I disagree. That's like claiming that glibc is a big gaming platform or something. A PS4 game is a PS4 game, the fact that part of it is BSD doesn't help you if you are running Free BSD and wondering why no one ever ports their Windows / Xbone / PS4 game to your OS.
> Can someone point to the anything in the environment today that still shows signs of damage from leaded gasoline?
Depends- possibly people. There's a few competing theories as to why violent crime fell so sharply, and one of them has to do with the sudden lack of lead exposure, especially in places with high traffic and reasonably low ventilation- cities.
Getting rid of leaded gasoline was a very needed and necessary thing- or rather, cutting it back dramatically was.
When cars went from relatively uncommon to extremely common, increasing by an order of magnitude, at the same time that miles driven per person year went way up, the lead went from some kind of rounding error to a problem of moderate seriousness, and it probably still has some effects today. If it had been shitcanned in the 50s, that would probably have been averted, and by then engine tech had had enough time to progress too. But once it was enshrined in practice it took a long time to weed out, as the other comments have pointed out.
Wikipedia has the most interesting quote about him in his article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
' J. R. McNeill, an environmental historian, opines that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history." '
Anyway, it's always been a bit of an unfair slam. Leaded gasoline only became an issue when the car number went from the 7.5 million that were around when TEL was being made, to the over 100 million that were around the time that leaded ramped down in the mid 70s. The miles driven per person were also way lower back then- because most people had to get around without a car, everything was set up for that. If you had it to do all over again, you'd probably STILL use leaded gasoline until about 1955 or so. However, at least everyone knew lead was bad for you back then- not so with Freon's very hard to verify environmental impact, which wasn't understood for a lot longer.
Well, you could embiggen it to descripify the other moleculuses.
> An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job.
I'm sad you are being modded down a bit because I think your response is interesting for sure.
As has been pointed out- this is NOT the majority opinion. And frankly, it isn't even mine. If you put Sylvester Stallone holding a gun on the poster, I'm going to see that movie in the theater on opening week. Same with any of the action stars I like. In my opinion, movies that exist to tell a specific story are the exception, and they certainly don't need name brand actors, or actors that "always play the same role", but if it's a movie that falls into the more general template of "vehicle to showcase Vin Diesel punching people", then the star is quite literally the point, and if the movie happens to actually be good aside from that, then awesome. But it's not a requirement.
> Would they also like to force everyone to buy guns that can only shoot blank ammunition?
Probably. This is a sustained fight to eliminate the bill of rights in practice and adopt a European-style set of laws that can be changed by the legislative branch at any time- if they are willing to openly declare war on the first and fourth amendments, and install their agents in your firmware (which is arguably in violation of the third), why would the second amendment be any more sacred to them to the rest of that inconvenient bill of rights?
> Forbes is broken for me unless I go through the effort of fixing it, I guess.
Correct, it's a shit site. Each url currently (they change the details about monthly) points to some garbagebutt thing like what you found, that conditionally loads the rest of the site. Their current festival of poop works ok with uBlock Origin, but it utterly fails with noscript (even allowing all their hundred random malware domains). I'm at the point where I have three browsers open (currently three different browsers, but you can easily make them all the same browser with different home directories). Forbes links get pasted into Pale Moon, which is set to allow scripts, but which I judge as rather less likely to be subject to all the zillion 0 day javascript nonsense. It's still risky, of course.
Of course it takes you to the "welcome page", I said it was still a Forbes link. Why would I give you that warning otherwise?
What it does is eventually resolve to the article, which had presumably changed destination urls or something- the original one went to the proper html name, but in an improper directory, hence 404.
Actual Link (warning: still Forbes): http://www.forbes.com/sites/st...