The notion that everything that isn't core functionality is "fluff", gives the impression that it is non-essential.
Yep, you've got to worry about reductivist thinking like this. If that were the case, then A Tale of Two Cities would, in its entirety, be: 'Sydney Carton had a twin.'
What part of "close and don't show me this again" don't you understand? 3rd week in a row now I've see that crap pop up. I hope this isn't going to be a nightmare like it was with/. beta plaguing everyone.
If you keep clearing your cookies, it will keep popping up. Idiot.
No, it appears to be the kind of cookie they're using. Every time I restart my browsers, I see this advertisement again. Clearly, the cookie is only being set for the session. Also, why the fuck is this not stored in the database, instead of in the cookie? It's trivially easy to associate this with the logged-in userid. Now, this is Slashdot, so odds are good that we can attribute this to incompetence rather than malice. But....
... But they also keep showing this to users (like myself) who have taken them up on their own offer to turn advertising off, which is really fucking stupid. As I wrote elsewhere, 'I probably wouldn't have cared about Slashdot Deals anyway, but now I fucking hate it. It's that asshole creep at the bar that won't leave your friend alone.'
Charlie Hebdo's next cover: Bomber Mohammed thrusting a lit stick of dynamite up an altar boy's ass. The slogan DEATH TO JEWS written in wet, splattery paint across the entire thing.
Those of us interested in DSLR cameras are at the point of diminishing returns. I didn't buy a new DSLR or any new glass in 2014, and hardly got anything new in 2013. Why? Because the longevity of the equipment keeps increasing. I'm currently shooting with a 5D Mark II, and all but the most absolute extreme conditions does this camera perform nearly perfectly. The same goes for the lens collection in my bag, they cover more than 99% of the conditions that I'm shooting it. It is very rare where I'm feeling like the equipment is the limiting factor to the point where I want to invest the money to replace it.
The 5D Mark II is a really nice little camera. It hits the sweet spot in so many ways that I can understand perfectly why you'd be content with it.
I'm a Nikon guy myself, and had much the same attitude about my last camera body. But then I got a D800 and realised that technology had moved on a long way from the D700 or D3. The dynamic range and light sensitivity is now better than the human eye. I can shoot up to about ISO 6400 and, thanks to the 32MP, full-frame CMOS, still get a useful shot. I generally size my photographs down to 6500 pixels on the wide side, just because more than that is usually overkill.
TL;DR: You don't need the newest generation of gear to do what you've always done. You can use the newest generation of gear to take photographs that you wouldn't have taken before.
Sounds like what the FCC will do in the US eventually. Just give it some time until "for the children" or to fight "the terrorists" the FCC will require real names etc.
Yep, I was just about to say, that as much as we in the US bash China for lack of privacy and personal rights (including the right 'not to be seen')....there are a lot in the US government (fed and state) just salivating over ending anonymous access to the internet just as much as the Chinese.
Have you not been paying attention? The 'real names' thing was invented here. Except it was started by the private sector, not government.
Before you claim there's any difference between the two, I will direct you to The Dangers of Surveillance, a paper that first appeared in the Harvard Law Review, and is required reading for anyone who's interested in the legal principles at play here. I too used to think, 'Yeah, but you can walk away from a business, but you can't walk away from government.' The paper makes an excellent point that real name policies, no matter where they originate, are detrimental to human liberty:
[W]e must recognize that surveillance transcends the public-private divide. Even if we are ultimately more concerned with government surveillance, any solution must grapple with the complex relationships between government and corporate watchers.
In a nutshell, if a corporation has your data, then by hook or by crook, the government can get it too, often voluntarily, often in circumvention of the law.
Correct they do. What systemd standardization does is allows Linux applications to have a constant API to write against
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant a 'consistent' API.
How is this unique to systemd? How is systemd a requirement for this to occur? A consistent API for what, exactly? For inter-process communication? For service-to-service communication? For communication of service state change?
... to get process management
Ah, for process management! Because that's never existed before!
... and thus as chunks of systemd get replaced by more complex PaaS components that API is how they talk to individual applications.
Yes, because adding complexity has been the goal of sysadmins from Day One.
That's the benefit. Systemd sets a much higher minimum and a standard.
Raise the bar! Higher standards! More Bugs! But fuck that! Because we didn't write the bugs! We just made them possible!
They've been working at Perl 6 for - what? Ten years now? In that time one can develop an OS from scratch. What's Perl going to do? Give you minty fresh breath all day long and unlimited sex with multiple, highly-desirable partners of your choice?
No, that was Perl5. Perl6 is all of that, with Asian twins.
... oh, and regular expression grammars, but hey: Asian twins!
Every serious (read "non-vendor-sponsored") study for the last 20 years has shown that computers in school hinder education.
Except that this one doesn't, smarty-pants. The author of the fucking article herself says as much:
We don’t know why this is, but we can speculate.
And then she goes on for the rest of the fucking article making stupid assumptions about the influence of technology on students, before admitting that the only factor that really matters is good teachers.
Which we have also known for ages, but choose to ignore because having good teachers means paying taxes.
What's to say that the decline wouldn't have happened anyway over the same time period, even if they hadn't been exposed to computers and the Internet?
Indeed, the very first thing that jumped out at me is: how did they correlate their findings? Did they compare the correlation between computers and schools with the funding abyss into which most poor schools have fallen into over the last two decades? Did they compare the correlation between the arrival of computers and the start of No Child Left Behind, and its disastrous effect on education outcomes?
Prima facie, attempting to isolate the effect of technology from other recently introduced policies and phenomena seems difficult, to put it lightly.
I'll be here all night folks. Tip your servers. Make sure they're bolted in, though.
Don't blow your stack if nobody applauds. It's just that we're overflowing with bad puns, and the funny bits get flipped around, and in the end all we see is some stupid zero on the stage who's only in it for the cache anyway.
Will you please actually read the quote rather than quoting an inorrect interpretation. The quote is:
"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
It means that once a bug is found, it is shallow, i.e. quick and easy to solve for someone. It doesn't and never did mean that all bugs will be found.
Actually, it's unfortunate, but I think he did mean that:
Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone.
That's his longer version of the same slogan - literally the next sentence in the essay.
It's possible to read that as meaning that every problem —once it's been found— will be fixed quickly and relatively easily, but Occam's razor says that we should understand discovery of the problem to be implicit in this statement.
But... you are right to say that FOSS is far better at fixing known bugs than proprietary software. By the late '90s, I was so sick of having my professional reputation as a systems software developer tarnished by bugs, poor quality and stupid release cycles that I stopped supporting Windows entirely. Dropped the entire proprietary ecosystem and moved to Linux and FOSS. I can't say it's been perfect, but I've slept way better since then.
What criteria are you using to distinguish a nonconstitutional state from a constitutional one?
Example: In 2006, the Fijian military seized power from the elected Parliament. Some time afterward, on instruction from the military dictator, the President abrogated the constitution. During the entire tenure of the military regime, they did not issue a single law. They lacked the constitutional authority to do so. Instead, they issued a number of decrees, because that's what they were: Follow this instruction or get a visit from some very burly men with guns.
During the time between the abrogation of the old constitution and the promulgation of the new one (a period of several years), Fiji was a non-constitutional republic.
If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.
Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.
Uh... that only means they don't bother with a warrant. They just go and get whatever they like.
Perversely, you're actually better off dealing with these ridiculous, draconian, panopticonian laws, because at least in theory you have some kind of recourse - even if it consists of fighting retroactively to reduce the J. Edgar Hoovering up of your personal data. If you use an offshore email provider, the NSA will just grab whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without even the tiniest fig leaf of law to cover up strategic bits.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, they're in Cork.
EXACTLY.
It's a miracle they can speak at all. :-)
Try to get the dicks out of your mouth before you post.
It's the fact that you used the plural that makes this true comedy.
Yes, but the point is silly anyway.
The notion that everything that isn't core functionality is "fluff", gives the impression that it is non-essential.
Yep, you've got to worry about reductivist thinking like this. If that were the case, then A Tale of Two Cities would, in its entirety, be: 'Sydney Carton had a twin.'
The rest is mere extrapolation.
What part of "close and don't show me this again" don't you understand? 3rd week in a row now I've see that crap pop up. I hope this isn't going to be a nightmare like it was with /. beta plaguing everyone.
If you keep clearing your cookies, it will keep popping up. Idiot.
No, it appears to be the kind of cookie they're using. Every time I restart my browsers, I see this advertisement again. Clearly, the cookie is only being set for the session. Also, why the fuck is this not stored in the database, instead of in the cookie? It's trivially easy to associate this with the logged-in userid. Now, this is Slashdot, so odds are good that we can attribute this to incompetence rather than malice. But....
... But they also keep showing this to users (like myself) who have taken them up on their own offer to turn advertising off, which is really fucking stupid. As I wrote elsewhere, 'I probably wouldn't have cared about Slashdot Deals anyway, but now I fucking hate it. It's that asshole creep at the bar that won't leave your friend alone.'
Still OK
Charlie Hebdo's next cover: Bomber Mohammed thrusting a lit stick of dynamite up an altar boy's ass. The slogan DEATH TO JEWS written in wet, splattery paint across the entire thing.
Those of us interested in DSLR cameras are at the point of diminishing returns. I didn't buy a new DSLR or any new glass in 2014, and hardly got anything new in 2013. Why? Because the longevity of the equipment keeps increasing. I'm currently shooting with a 5D Mark II, and all but the most absolute extreme conditions does this camera perform nearly perfectly. The same goes for the lens collection in my bag, they cover more than 99% of the conditions that I'm shooting it. It is very rare where I'm feeling like the equipment is the limiting factor to the point where I want to invest the money to replace it.
The 5D Mark II is a really nice little camera. It hits the sweet spot in so many ways that I can understand perfectly why you'd be content with it.
I'm a Nikon guy myself, and had much the same attitude about my last camera body. But then I got a D800 and realised that technology had moved on a long way from the D700 or D3. The dynamic range and light sensitivity is now better than the human eye. I can shoot up to about ISO 6400 and, thanks to the 32MP, full-frame CMOS, still get a useful shot. I generally size my photographs down to 6500 pixels on the wide side, just because more than that is usually overkill.
TL;DR: You don't need the newest generation of gear to do what you've always done. You can use the newest generation of gear to take photographs that you wouldn't have taken before.
Russia does this, South Korea does this, and now China.
South Korea's policy was struck down years ago by the Constitutional Court, which ruled that it was unconstitutional and ineffective.
Yep, I was just about to say, that as much as we in the US bash China for lack of privacy and personal rights (including the right 'not to be seen')....there are a lot in the US government (fed and state) just salivating over ending anonymous access to the internet just as much as the Chinese.
Have you not been paying attention? The 'real names' thing was invented here. Except it was started by the private sector, not government.
Before you claim there's any difference between the two, I will direct you to The Dangers of Surveillance, a paper that first appeared in the Harvard Law Review, and is required reading for anyone who's interested in the legal principles at play here. I too used to think, 'Yeah, but you can walk away from a business, but you can't walk away from government.' The paper makes an excellent point that real name policies, no matter where they originate, are detrimental to human liberty:
[W]e must recognize that surveillance transcends the public-private divide. Even if we are ultimately more concerned with government surveillance, any solution must grapple with the complex relationships between government and corporate watchers.
In a nutshell, if a corporation has your data, then by hook or by crook, the government can get it too, often voluntarily, often in circumvention of the law.
I was about to comment on the woosh that just flew over your head, but then I decided it was too much trouble.
Thi...
Oh fuck it.
Correct they do. What systemd standardization does is allows Linux applications to have a constant API to write against
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant a 'consistent' API.
How is this unique to systemd? How is systemd a requirement for this to occur? A consistent API for what, exactly? For inter-process communication? For service-to-service communication? For communication of service state change?
... to get process management
Ah, for process management! Because that's never existed before!
... and thus as chunks of systemd get replaced by more complex PaaS components that API is how they talk to individual applications.
Yes, because adding complexity has been the goal of sysadmins from Day One.
That's the benefit. Systemd sets a much higher minimum and a standard.
Raise the bar! Higher standards! More Bugs! But fuck that! Because we didn't write the bugs! We just made them possible!
To summarise: I find your ideas questionable, at best, and downright wrong, mostly.
Regular Expression Grammars. If Perl6 consisted of nothing else, I'd still love it.
They've been working at Perl 6 for - what? Ten years now? In that time one can develop an OS from scratch. What's Perl going to do? Give you minty fresh breath all day long and unlimited sex with multiple, highly-desirable partners of your choice?
No, that was Perl5. Perl6 is all of that, with Asian twins.
... oh, and regular expression grammars, but hey: Asian twins!
You've got it all wrong. Tree branches are gnarly, not fish.
He meant narwhally. Which is still not fish, but closer.
Every serious (read "non-vendor-sponsored") study for the last 20 years has shown that computers in school hinder education.
Except that this one doesn't, smarty-pants. The author of the fucking article herself says as much:
We don’t know why this is, but we can speculate.
And then she goes on for the rest of the fucking article making stupid assumptions about the influence of technology on students, before admitting that the only factor that really matters is good teachers.
Which we have also known for ages, but choose to ignore because having good teachers means paying taxes.
What's to say that the decline wouldn't have happened anyway over the same time period, even if they hadn't been exposed to computers and the Internet?
Indeed, the very first thing that jumped out at me is: how did they correlate their findings? Did they compare the correlation between computers and schools with the funding abyss into which most poor schools have fallen into over the last two decades? Did they compare the correlation between the arrival of computers and the start of No Child Left Behind, and its disastrous effect on education outcomes?
Prima facie, attempting to isolate the effect of technology from other recently introduced policies and phenomena seems difficult, to put it lightly.
What is a w***e ?
Wylie, as in Coyote.
I got Ariadne as well, but b***h....
What makes you think we haven't already done that with ad neaseam ?
Wait - I'm confused. Have we renamed it ad neaseam yet? Or is it still nauseam?
Bruce
Meh, just go back in time and get Cambridge to accept "at nauseum" as the approved version.
That's how nerds will win the internet in the future. :)
What makes you think we haven't already done that with ad neaseam?
Sincerely,
Bruce Hecklesby
Chairman,
International Time Travelers for Proper Latin Spelling
Troll-rated? Really? That's kind of the opposite of a troll post.
Don't be so glib, see?
I'll be here all night folks. Tip your servers. Make sure they're bolted in, though.
Don't blow your stack if nobody applauds. It's just that we're overflowing with bad puns, and the funny bits get flipped around, and in the end all we see is some stupid zero on the stage who's only in it for the cache anyway.
Will you please actually read the quote rather than quoting an inorrect interpretation. The quote is:
"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
It means that once a bug is found, it is shallow, i.e. quick and easy to solve for someone. It doesn't and never did mean that all bugs will be found.
Actually, it's unfortunate, but I think he did mean that:
Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone.
That's his longer version of the same slogan - literally the next sentence in the essay.
It's possible to read that as meaning that every problem —once it's been found— will be fixed quickly and relatively easily, but Occam's razor says that we should understand discovery of the problem to be implicit in this statement.
But... you are right to say that FOSS is far better at fixing known bugs than proprietary software. By the late '90s, I was so sick of having my professional reputation as a systems software developer tarnished by bugs, poor quality and stupid release cycles that I stopped supporting Windows entirely. Dropped the entire proprietary ecosystem and moved to Linux and FOSS. I can't say it's been perfect, but I've slept way better since then.
What criteria are you using to distinguish a nonconstitutional state from a constitutional one?
Example: In 2006, the Fijian military seized power from the elected Parliament. Some time afterward, on instruction from the military dictator, the President abrogated the constitution. During the entire tenure of the military regime, they did not issue a single law. They lacked the constitutional authority to do so. Instead, they issued a number of decrees, because that's what they were: Follow this instruction or get a visit from some very burly men with guns.
During the time between the abrogation of the old constitution and the promulgation of the new one (a period of several years), Fiji was a non-constitutional republic.
If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.
Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.
Uh... that only means they don't bother with a warrant. They just go and get whatever they like.
Perversely, you're actually better off dealing with these ridiculous, draconian, panopticonian laws, because at least in theory you have some kind of recourse - even if it consists of fighting retroactively to reduce the J. Edgar Hoovering up of your personal data. If you use an offshore email provider, the NSA will just grab whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without even the tiniest fig leaf of law to cover up strategic bits.
milli is one thousandth, so Mega milli is a Kilo
ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!
Here I went and ignored the First Rule of Slashdot: Coffee, then comment.
I read that as Mega-milli-Watt.
Or... Watt, as it's commonly known.