I can't bring myself to read the article because in the summary this guy is confusing 'ls' with 'bash'. Can we get someone who actually knows what they're talking about to write about it?
Yes, given the attitudes thrown around about it.
There is a serious coercive element to the structure holding up the two party system.
It's something called intimidation: the action of intimidating someone, or the state of being intimidated. intimidate
verb
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.
But everybody has to take faith that the observers are fair and not tampered with. I can use my county government website to verify whether my ballot has been received and counted, but that is the extent of information that it will return to me. I cannot verify that my counted vote was counted properly, that my vote went toward my chosen candidate or my votes on measures were appropriately recorded.
I would support removing the blinders entirely, creating an open record of the vote, allowing anyone to verify the counts.
Granted, this is easier said than done. There are privacy implications, as scrubbing the data of personal information would inhibit independent verification. There are people who would refuse to vote if their vote was on public record. John Q Public might not want his family to know that he votes differently than the household slant, but perhaps openly recording who we vote for would allow us to move beyond some of the reasons why that might be.
It says that blind ballots guard against voter coercion, but that's not true in the least. What's the one going around these days, vote for Clinton so we don't get Trump, if you vote for Stein or Johnson you're voting for Trump? That's blatant, widespread, constant voter coercion.
At this point I feel like we would be better off making the vote completely transparent. The blind vote isn't helping anyone but the people who would want to rig elections, since there is no way to publicly vet the voting process with it in place.
It's pretty ridiculous to me that Linux developers ever accepted the Bitkeeper terms. I honestly can't see a reasonable justification for it. Why the hell would anyone building an open source operating system rely on a closed source revision control system whose license could be - AND WAS - revoked because someone tried to write a tool to interoperate with it?
The resounding boom and development of git was a godsend.
I base that in part on one of the intended uses as method of displaying and interacting with scientific visualizations. Some of the software that would really shine on this device benefits greatly from having an actual GPU rather than an integrated Intel graphics chip, but you're spending over 20 grand to get that with the Surface Hub.
Yup. It's a cool idea, has some neat features (100 point multitouch surface!), but there's nowhere near enough horsepower behind it. They pretty much took the tablet hardware and attached a huge display to it, adding 8 thousand to the price tag...
But the particular models they come with are outdated enough that they no longer have those advantages over current gaming GPUs at a fraction of the price.
It's a serious waste.
Nah, it's not that I'm a pussy, it's that an operating system which breaks horribly to such a degree has no value to someone using their computer for work.
Yes, Arch Linux is unstable. I used Arch Linux for a while and I absolutely loved what they were doing with it, right up until a series of updates that occurred which broke the system to such a degree that I ran for the hills. These updates were known to cause serious issues, and if you were following their newsreel and reading everything they posted you could have avoid having your system hosed, but otherwise you fired off the bog-standard update command your system was FUCKED.
And they deprecated their installer around the same time, claiming it wasn't maintainable and not worth the time.
Those guys are behind the curve and will soon be scrambling to make sure everything is up to date.
It's the same situation we had with every major revision of Windows in the past. Hordes of people insisting on keeping their outdated, but working and mission critical, systems up and running. Hordes of people slowly finding that they're having to pass on using the most up to date tools for their jobs because they decided to stick with end of life platforms. Hordes of people getting increasingly frustrated as their old infrastructure begins to fail and they're stubbornly insisting they keep on the old and 'working' while it falls apart.
I understand. I didn't want to let go of Windows 2000, what benefit did Windows XP give me beyond a pretty face? But you know, I was wrong then, and they're wrong now. Let's hope they wise up and start taking the steps to migrate successfully instead of waiting until the infrastructure is 15 years old and crumbling at the slightest touch. Those XP guys who come into my repair shop are a sorry bunch, y'know. But the Vista guys are too, and recently the 7 guys are looking pretty down themselves. It will be far too soon that 8 is on the chopping block, but we'll have the same problems with the same people who don't want to ride the curve and prefer to prop up failing systems with bubblegum and toothpicks.
It's just the same old story. It's not Nadella's Microsoft, it's start working on your migration plans and get ready because this happens every five years and it's not going to stop. It comes with the territory. Keep your tools maintained and replaced them as needed, don't hold onto that rusty hatchet that's going to crumble when it hits the wood, that you've already duct taped together. Be better than that at what you're doing.
I dreamed of putting cameras on remote control toys since childhood. It's awesome that it happened and I'm expecting drones to become as common as cars in the future. It's going to get really interesting if drones are forced to defend themselves against people attacking them.
Our internet speeds are hopelessly degraded until the government data collection has been halted. The ISPs are unable to provide appropriate quality of service while they are expected to mirror all data that travels through their pipes. This has been a problem for over a decade now, I doubt it'll come to an end any time soon.
If hand counted ballots were effective, we wouldn't have the winners announced the day of the polling. It takes more time to count the votes than that. They don't even wait a few days to make a show of it, just announce the winner when only a small amount of votes have actually been counted. Electronic voting has greater ability to be verifiable and accurate, as opposed to this charade we get now.
I was bummed as hell that they weren't able to capitalize on it. I watched Apple jump from the 64bit PowerPC G5 CPUs to 32bit Intel CPUs, which I considered a HUGE step backwards. AMD was the only company producing a 64bit desktop CPU that wasn't the G5 at the time, and they got glossed over. I think we'd be seeing a very different field right now if AMD had won the Apple contract. Hoping they can capitalize on their gains being the supplier for the console chips and start giving Intel some real competition again.
This is ridiculous. It was bad enough that Thunderbolt used the mini Display Port connector, now they're overloading USB-C which was already overloaded plenty. Overloading can be an incredibly useful technique when used in things like class operators in object oriented programming languages, but overloading physical connectors is a quick and easy way to break EVERYTHING. Look - the USB-C port on the MacBook Pro prevents you from using wall power and peripherals at the same time, and there's only one of them. Stop this madness. Computers are versatile tools and this is going to seriously limit their usefulness in the long term. Different connectors for different tasks, enough connectors to do those tasks simultaneously, has real world benefits that aren't negotiable in serious usage.
This trend has been evil since the iDevices launched with their all-in-one connector.
My prediction is that we see an awful lot of devices move to this model followed by sales dropping through the floor as the cracks start showing in real world usage. Maybe we'll see a resurgence of desktop sales at that point, assuming the motherboard manufacturers don't blow the goat as well.
Yes, you can buy Arduino boards from any number of manufacturers and the software is open source. What this changes is whether Arduino SRL is going to be a worthwhile source of any of that.
What you say is true, however I feel it sidesteps the point that Arduino SRL's actions are damaging to the brand. They're flushing their own investment by attempting to take control of something that, as you've pointed out, is far beyond their reigns. If I were a distributor of Arduino SRL's products, and had read up on the story, what would I think of continuing to distribute their products?
The Arduino ecosystem relied on the strong contributions from everyone involved to reach the heights that it has. This kind of action by one of the corporations involved is just a way of telling us all that Arduino is no longer worth the trouble. Hobbyists are losing one of the coolest products available because a board producer doesn't understand the value of the software that runs the board. Arduino is no longer worth the time and money in that scenario.
That model of Macintosh was a Road Apple. It had specifications that put it in line with Macintosh models that cost half as much. It was notoriously bad for what it cost, what was in it, and how it held up in real world usage. In 1998, Apple released a Macintosh model for 1,299.99 called the "iMac" that performed better than the $7,500 20th Anniversary Macintosh.
It had nothing to do with the TV tuner. That Mac was junk.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't bring myself to read the article because in the summary this guy is confusing 'ls' with 'bash'. Can we get someone who actually knows what they're talking about to write about it?
Yes, given the attitudes thrown around about it.
There is a serious coercive element to the structure holding up the two party system.
It's something called intimidation: the action of intimidating someone, or the state of being intimidated.
intimidate
verb
frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.
Yup. We're being coerced.
But everybody has to take faith that the observers are fair and not tampered with. I can use my county government website to verify whether my ballot has been received and counted, but that is the extent of information that it will return to me. I cannot verify that my counted vote was counted properly, that my vote went toward my chosen candidate or my votes on measures were appropriately recorded.
I would support removing the blinders entirely, creating an open record of the vote, allowing anyone to verify the counts.
Granted, this is easier said than done. There are privacy implications, as scrubbing the data of personal information would inhibit independent verification. There are people who would refuse to vote if their vote was on public record. John Q Public might not want his family to know that he votes differently than the household slant, but perhaps openly recording who we vote for would allow us to move beyond some of the reasons why that might be.
It says that blind ballots guard against voter coercion, but that's not true in the least. What's the one going around these days, vote for Clinton so we don't get Trump, if you vote for Stein or Johnson you're voting for Trump? That's blatant, widespread, constant voter coercion.
At this point I feel like we would be better off making the vote completely transparent. The blind vote isn't helping anyone but the people who would want to rig elections, since there is no way to publicly vet the voting process with it in place.
There is much to be learned from the past.
Insert list of every high level language that isn't self-hosting.
It's pretty ridiculous to me that Linux developers ever accepted the Bitkeeper terms. I honestly can't see a reasonable justification for it. Why the hell would anyone building an open source operating system rely on a closed source revision control system whose license could be - AND WAS - revoked because someone tried to write a tool to interoperate with it?
The resounding boom and development of git was a godsend.
You can see the difference in the smoothness of cursor movement alone, let alone everything else.
I base that in part on one of the intended uses as method of displaying and interacting with scientific visualizations. Some of the software that would really shine on this device benefits greatly from having an actual GPU rather than an integrated Intel graphics chip, but you're spending over 20 grand to get that with the Surface Hub.
Yup. It's a cool idea, has some neat features (100 point multitouch surface!), but there's nowhere near enough horsepower behind it. They pretty much took the tablet hardware and attached a huge display to it, adding 8 thousand to the price tag...
But the particular models they come with are outdated enough that they no longer have those advantages over current gaming GPUs at a fraction of the price.
It's a serious waste.
What, are you a malware author or something? Remove this backdoor garbage from official add-on repositories.
Nah, it's not that I'm a pussy, it's that an operating system which breaks horribly to such a degree has no value to someone using their computer for work.
Yes, Arch Linux is unstable. I used Arch Linux for a while and I absolutely loved what they were doing with it, right up until a series of updates that occurred which broke the system to such a degree that I ran for the hills. These updates were known to cause serious issues, and if you were following their newsreel and reading everything they posted you could have avoid having your system hosed, but otherwise you fired off the bog-standard update command your system was FUCKED.
And they deprecated their installer around the same time, claiming it wasn't maintainable and not worth the time.
What a bunch of buffoons.
Those guys are behind the curve and will soon be scrambling to make sure everything is up to date.
It's the same situation we had with every major revision of Windows in the past. Hordes of people insisting on keeping their outdated, but working and mission critical, systems up and running. Hordes of people slowly finding that they're having to pass on using the most up to date tools for their jobs because they decided to stick with end of life platforms. Hordes of people getting increasingly frustrated as their old infrastructure begins to fail and they're stubbornly insisting they keep on the old and 'working' while it falls apart.
I understand. I didn't want to let go of Windows 2000, what benefit did Windows XP give me beyond a pretty face? But you know, I was wrong then, and they're wrong now. Let's hope they wise up and start taking the steps to migrate successfully instead of waiting until the infrastructure is 15 years old and crumbling at the slightest touch. Those XP guys who come into my repair shop are a sorry bunch, y'know. But the Vista guys are too, and recently the 7 guys are looking pretty down themselves. It will be far too soon that 8 is on the chopping block, but we'll have the same problems with the same people who don't want to ride the curve and prefer to prop up failing systems with bubblegum and toothpicks.
It's just the same old story. It's not Nadella's Microsoft, it's start working on your migration plans and get ready because this happens every five years and it's not going to stop. It comes with the territory. Keep your tools maintained and replaced them as needed, don't hold onto that rusty hatchet that's going to crumble when it hits the wood, that you've already duct taped together. Be better than that at what you're doing.
Bitcoin is simply another currency in a world where currencies in themselves are becoming abstracted away.
I dreamed of putting cameras on remote control toys since childhood. It's awesome that it happened and I'm expecting drones to become as common as cars in the future. It's going to get really interesting if drones are forced to defend themselves against people attacking them.
Our internet speeds are hopelessly degraded until the government data collection has been halted. The ISPs are unable to provide appropriate quality of service while they are expected to mirror all data that travels through their pipes. This has been a problem for over a decade now, I doubt it'll come to an end any time soon.
If hand counted ballots were effective, we wouldn't have the winners announced the day of the polling. It takes more time to count the votes than that. They don't even wait a few days to make a show of it, just announce the winner when only a small amount of votes have actually been counted. Electronic voting has greater ability to be verifiable and accurate, as opposed to this charade we get now.
I was bummed as hell that they weren't able to capitalize on it. I watched Apple jump from the 64bit PowerPC G5 CPUs to 32bit Intel CPUs, which I considered a HUGE step backwards. AMD was the only company producing a 64bit desktop CPU that wasn't the G5 at the time, and they got glossed over. I think we'd be seeing a very different field right now if AMD had won the Apple contract. Hoping they can capitalize on their gains being the supplier for the console chips and start giving Intel some real competition again.
This is ridiculous. It was bad enough that Thunderbolt used the mini Display Port connector, now they're overloading USB-C which was already overloaded plenty. Overloading can be an incredibly useful technique when used in things like class operators in object oriented programming languages, but overloading physical connectors is a quick and easy way to break EVERYTHING. Look - the USB-C port on the MacBook Pro prevents you from using wall power and peripherals at the same time, and there's only one of them. Stop this madness. Computers are versatile tools and this is going to seriously limit their usefulness in the long term. Different connectors for different tasks, enough connectors to do those tasks simultaneously, has real world benefits that aren't negotiable in serious usage.
This trend has been evil since the iDevices launched with their all-in-one connector.
My prediction is that we see an awful lot of devices move to this model followed by sales dropping through the floor as the cracks start showing in real world usage. Maybe we'll see a resurgence of desktop sales at that point, assuming the motherboard manufacturers don't blow the goat as well.
Yes, you can buy Arduino boards from any number of manufacturers and the software is open source. What this changes is whether Arduino SRL is going to be a worthwhile source of any of that.
What you say is true, however I feel it sidesteps the point that Arduino SRL's actions are damaging to the brand. They're flushing their own investment by attempting to take control of something that, as you've pointed out, is far beyond their reigns. If I were a distributor of Arduino SRL's products, and had read up on the story, what would I think of continuing to distribute their products?
The Arduino ecosystem relied on the strong contributions from everyone involved to reach the heights that it has. This kind of action by one of the corporations involved is just a way of telling us all that Arduino is no longer worth the trouble. Hobbyists are losing one of the coolest products available because a board producer doesn't understand the value of the software that runs the board. Arduino is no longer worth the time and money in that scenario.
That model of Macintosh was a Road Apple. It had specifications that put it in line with Macintosh models that cost half as much. It was notoriously bad for what it cost, what was in it, and how it held up in real world usage. In 1998, Apple released a Macintosh model for 1,299.99 called the "iMac" that performed better than the $7,500 20th Anniversary Macintosh.
It had nothing to do with the TV tuner. That Mac was junk.