Yeah, what kind of dumass has root's password set to 'root'? Mine is '123456'. I reserve 'root' for my regular user's password. No one will ever guess THAT.
I checked into the savings I'd get on my house insurance if I got a house alarm. IIRC, it was about $30/year (~10% at the time). Cost of monitoring? $20+/month. So, basically, the savings on my house insurance are about 6 weeks of monitoring. I still have to fund the other 46 weeks.
So the question a business will ask is whether the cost of securing their data is more or less than the loss of insecure data, insurance rates included. I'm betting the cost of securing data will be far, far more than any insurance savings they see.
<hat type="tin-foil"><tongue planted-firmly="in-cheek">Oh, it's a scam alright. What no one realises is that this alleged "artist" actually works for... FedEx. That's right, it's a ploy to get stuff continuously sent around the world, whether it's useful or not, simply by making it allegedly "wanted" by calling it "art". Very clever, FedEx. Very. Clever.</tongue></hat>
Right. Because the RIAA never goes after people who haven't pirated. They don't send nasty letters to printers or 7-year-old girls.
The stress of living in a police state (and that's what RIAA has proclaimed themselves to be, not in word but in deed) is not whether you did something wrong or not, it's whether you're accused (and thus nearly automatically convicted) of doing something wrong, regardless of whether you actually did it or not.
Nevermind the US, my wife and I brought a purebred puppy from Toronto to Edmonton in the cabin for one of my friends' parents who had bought the dog from a breeder in Southern Ontario. Air Canada charged us $50 or something like that (which my friend's parents promptly reimbursed upon arrival). During the Christmas rush - the breeder showed up at the airport late, but we were still about 40-60 minutes back in line to check in.
I was surprised to hear Air Canada was "now" allowing pets in the cabin as I was under the impression they always had. At least, we had no issue with it, back in about 2000.
Do the guys pictured in this article look black to you? (Ok, a couple of them are harder to tell.) In Canada anyway, we don't associate watermelon hats with Blacks. We associate them with Saskatchewanites. Saskatchewenians. Saskatchew... People from Saskatchewan.
And, with racism in Canada not being measurable when compared to the Deep South of the US, I guess you could call this our version of racism.
No, most people use it because they think they sound smart when they use a big word. The problem is, it's not a word and thus they just sound like an idiot to the very people they are trying to impress when they say or write irregardless.
As a former coworker once told me, "Never use a large word when a diminutive one will suffice." I think he was showing off.
as "proposed supporters of climate alarmism" ought to ring the warning bells, no?
I know this might be a bit far out there, but a) you did qualify with a big "if", and b) there may be (and I don't know being unilingual, and sometimes I'm not so good in that language, either) a colloquialism or idiom in Russian that translates poorly into English, such as trying to translate things like "yeah, right" (meaning: I don't believe you) or "out like a light" (asleep) or "sleeping like a baby" (usually doesn't indicate waking up every two hours, crying and having pissed one's pants) into other languages, especially if done mechanically. Ok, so that's basically only one point, but I thought it was a big enough point that it needed two letters attached to it.
Basically, you said, "if I'm right, I'm right, no?" And, I suppose the answer is, "Um, yeah, I guess so?" But that's just a strawman where we're supposed to glance right over your big assumption.
Then again, even should we grant you the big assumption, you're tearing down their argument based on an interesting combination of ad hominem (attacking the messanger as being, basically, a bunch of crackpots) and appeal to authority ("orthodox scientists"). Basically, this crackpot has posed a very testable and simple question: were a bunch of Russian data points ignored, and, if so, do they detract from the apparent consensus? The less testable question is whether, if the points were ignored and they do detract from the consensus, they were ignored due to this detraction or not. If they were ignored because, for example, they were unreliable (e.g., a thermometer that was in the middle of a field 80 years ago, but is now in the middle of a sprawling metropolis, thus affected by urban heating, or if it were moved 2 km up or downhill, their values may not be directly comparable, and thus discarding may have been the right thing to do, which then would lead skeptics of AGW to question if they did this consistently to all data points globally or just to these ones in Russia)? Or other valid reason perhaps? The charge is still valid, even if you don't like the accuser.
Seriously, reading a patent thread on Slashdot is like watching a couple of MBAs argue heatedly about whether it's better to write Linux drivers in AJAX or SCSI.
Undoubtedly AJAX. I wouldn't want scuzzy drivers on my iPhone.
Given the successful lobbying by the AGW crowd, I'm not sure there's as much money in denial as you think there is. There's money on both sides. And therein lies the problem. It takes what should be a sound scientific endeavour, and then politicises and economises the hell out of it. If it was valid science before, we can't find it now. Instead, we get propoganda (your term) billed as a documentary and sold as entertainment by a politician. Assuming AGW is right, this is like putting shit on a diamond. It may be valuable, but it stinks.
A free browser? Cool, so I could download it and, say, run it under wine, completely legitly? No? (If wine won't run it due to lack of support of needed APIs, that'd be different.)
Same goes for the media player. It's free when I can decouple it from the OS it's embedded in, and run it in a compatible environment. Lack of support for other OS APIs, however, does not make it non-free. I'm fine with being able to attempt to run it under wine legally. They don't have to support wine.
I think you have it backwards. We already are without those restrictions simply by using another distro. This is taking GNU/Linux to a new architecture, a new way of operating. If you don't like it, there's still only about 20,000 other distros to pick from, so go there instead.
More likely is that any advance seen here would be added to the other distros post-haste. And that already is happening with chromium - the JS, rendering, and security models are already available on other distros before Chrome OS was even opened up, let alone released.
This is just Google entering the Linux-distro market in an Apple-like way: bundling everything (hardware, software) as a unit to provide a better end-user experience to their target market. If you don't like Macs, don't buy one. If you don't like Chrome OS, don't buy one. I know some people for whom this would be awesome. Just not me.
So it is a set of hippie scientist that are obviously overconcerned with the figures they are measuring versus 400 trillion dollars worth of people 100% concerned with next quarter's financial report, combined with all people that like their way of life as it is know thank-you-very-much.
And the truth will set you free. Or, it will annihilate you. Depends on whether you're overconcerned based on facts, or on massaging the facts in an unsupportable manner.
We all know that when we get our raw data, we have outliers. We get that. But that doesn't mean you cover up that the data ever existed. It means you publish the data, add in your explanation that you believe this to be an outlier (and maybe why), and merely don't use it when trying to approximate a slope, curve, whatever. That allows for peer review, including others who may come to a different conclusion about which data points are the outliers. And from there, we can have a healthy scientific discourse, and come to a conclusion which could be unchanged from your original theory and better supporting it. But when you don't publish the raw data, basically railroading peers to review only that which you deem relevant to your theory, you doom your peers to your viewpoint, and undermine the entire scientific process. And then you start sounding like a scientologist rather than a scientist.
Sorry, but I have a hard time understanding how, when we can't even predict tomorrow's weather with any sense of accuracy ("It'll be five degrees and sunny" -- and then it's 2 and snowing), we know what it's going to be like over the next 20, 50, or 100 years. The error bars just simply have to be overshadowing the predicted temperatures.
Great. And now those people will be redirected here. On one hand, it is like cleaning up the internet. On the other hand, you'll get all those pervs to come here and leave comments, drastically reducing the signal-to-noise ratio to basically zer... er, nevermind. Carry on.
It's not that I missed your point, it's that I dismissed it. Sound is working fine for both my machine (amd64) and my wife's (x86), even with my daughter's avid use of the Disney Princess (flash-based) site, and all other things related to a 3-year-old girl's interests.
Mostly, I use amarok all day long, though other applications don't seem to have issues, either (dragon, sox, flash in either firefox or konqueror, wesnoth,...). And sharing hasn't been an issue thus far, either.
At the moment, my only issue, which isn't actually with KDE, is that X has regressed a particular bug going from 1.6 to 1.7. And, also not with KDE, is that my video driver doesn't fully support OpenGL, so I don't get all the pretty playthings in KDE (though at least 4.3 gracefully tells me it doesn't work, unlike 4.0 which tried anyway and crashed).
Oddly, it actually does. I've enabled both the "Dialog Parent" and "Dim Inactive" desktop effects, basically darkening everything other than where my focus is, which, in effect, makes that application whiter and brighter than everything else. That contrast gives the illusion of whiter/brighter, which has actually helped my productivity on the machine.
Making the whites whiter and the brights brighter does seem to be part of their direction.
I have no idea why "a low end non power user" would know or care what their display resolution is.
"Is there a way I can make my screen bigger?"
"The power went out, and when I turned my computer on, everything was really big and now I have to scroll to see anything."
...
I don't know what end users you know, but the ones I know definitely care:)
I've never seen xorg.conf get corrupted the way the windows registry can. And that's probably partly because the xorg.conf is not open in read/write mode, nor with pending changes currently cached by some part of the system (fs cache, hd cache, etc.). Because it's read-only, owned by root (which you're usually not logged in as), and, heck, not even opened after X loads up, it's highly unlikely to be damaged by a power failure. Meanwhile, Windows keeps that information in the registry, which is probably opened in read/write mode at all times, with far too much access given to normal applications that may damage this particular part of the registry, and with pending writes that may be interrupted by the power failure, resulting in a partially corrupted registry. So you need to know how to do that on Windows.
That said, I'd simply point them to krandr (I'm assuming kde here, though I suspect there's a gnome equivalent) and let them play with it. It sits nicely in the system tray, too. Dynamic changes to the resolution? Just as easy as on Windows. Like anything else, though, only once you know where to look. (krandr will remember its setting and go back to it during log-in, so it's still permanent even though you don't have write access to the xorg.conf file. Just like things should be.)
Slashdot Mirror
But I just might have to remove all the mirrors from my penthouse apartment.
Something tells me ... that mirrors aren't a problem for the RIAA lawyers. They probably don't have reflections anyway.
"My fees will be $10m, but not to exceed 40% of awarded damages." "But, but ... we're only suing for $1m?"
Something tells me lawyers would find a loophole on that before it was ever proposed.
Yeah, what kind of dumass has root's password set to 'root'? Mine is '123456'. I reserve 'root' for my regular user's password. No one will ever guess THAT.
I checked into the savings I'd get on my house insurance if I got a house alarm. IIRC, it was about $30/year (~10% at the time). Cost of monitoring? $20+/month. So, basically, the savings on my house insurance are about 6 weeks of monitoring. I still have to fund the other 46 weeks.
So the question a business will ask is whether the cost of securing their data is more or less than the loss of insecure data, insurance rates included. I'm betting the cost of securing data will be far, far more than any insurance savings they see.
<hat type="tin-foil"><tongue planted-firmly="in-cheek">Oh, it's a scam alright. What no one realises is that this alleged "artist" actually works for ... FedEx. That's right, it's a ploy to get stuff continuously sent around the world, whether it's useful or not, simply by making it allegedly "wanted" by calling it "art". Very clever, FedEx. Very. Clever.</tongue></hat>
Right. Because the RIAA never goes after people who haven't pirated. They don't send nasty letters to printers or 7-year-old girls.
The stress of living in a police state (and that's what RIAA has proclaimed themselves to be, not in word but in deed) is not whether you did something wrong or not, it's whether you're accused (and thus nearly automatically convicted) of doing something wrong, regardless of whether you actually did it or not.
Nevermind the US, my wife and I brought a purebred puppy from Toronto to Edmonton in the cabin for one of my friends' parents who had bought the dog from a breeder in Southern Ontario. Air Canada charged us $50 or something like that (which my friend's parents promptly reimbursed upon arrival). During the Christmas rush - the breeder showed up at the airport late, but we were still about 40-60 minutes back in line to check in.
I was surprised to hear Air Canada was "now" allowing pets in the cabin as I was under the impression they always had. At least, we had no issue with it, back in about 2000.
So, um, er, that's a "yes"?
Do the guys pictured in this article look black to you? (Ok, a couple of them are harder to tell.) In Canada anyway, we don't associate watermelon hats with Blacks. We associate them with Saskatchewanites. Saskatchewenians. Saskatchew... People from Saskatchewan.
And, with racism in Canada not being measurable when compared to the Deep South of the US, I guess you could call this our version of racism.
No, most people use it because they think they sound smart when they use a big word. The problem is, it's not a word and thus they just sound like an idiot to the very people they are trying to impress when they say or write irregardless.
As a former coworker once told me, "Never use a large word when a diminutive one will suffice." I think he was showing off.
as "proposed supporters of climate alarmism" ought to ring the warning bells, no?
I know this might be a bit far out there, but a) you did qualify with a big "if", and b) there may be (and I don't know being unilingual, and sometimes I'm not so good in that language, either) a colloquialism or idiom in Russian that translates poorly into English, such as trying to translate things like "yeah, right" (meaning: I don't believe you) or "out like a light" (asleep) or "sleeping like a baby" (usually doesn't indicate waking up every two hours, crying and having pissed one's pants) into other languages, especially if done mechanically. Ok, so that's basically only one point, but I thought it was a big enough point that it needed two letters attached to it.
Basically, you said, "if I'm right, I'm right, no?" And, I suppose the answer is, "Um, yeah, I guess so?" But that's just a strawman where we're supposed to glance right over your big assumption.
Then again, even should we grant you the big assumption, you're tearing down their argument based on an interesting combination of ad hominem (attacking the messanger as being, basically, a bunch of crackpots) and appeal to authority ("orthodox scientists"). Basically, this crackpot has posed a very testable and simple question: were a bunch of Russian data points ignored, and, if so, do they detract from the apparent consensus? The less testable question is whether, if the points were ignored and they do detract from the consensus, they were ignored due to this detraction or not. If they were ignored because, for example, they were unreliable (e.g., a thermometer that was in the middle of a field 80 years ago, but is now in the middle of a sprawling metropolis, thus affected by urban heating, or if it were moved 2 km up or downhill, their values may not be directly comparable, and thus discarding may have been the right thing to do, which then would lead skeptics of AGW to question if they did this consistently to all data points globally or just to these ones in Russia)? Or other valid reason perhaps? The charge is still valid, even if you don't like the accuser.
Seriously, reading a patent thread on Slashdot is like watching a couple of MBAs argue heatedly about whether it's better to write Linux drivers in AJAX or SCSI.
Undoubtedly AJAX. I wouldn't want scuzzy drivers on my iPhone.
How exactly do you know which judge you'll get before the trial starts? Or do you hire another lawyer once you find out who the judge is?
And how do you know which lawyers are the judge's friends other than by looking on the judge's facebook page?
Given the successful lobbying by the AGW crowd, I'm not sure there's as much money in denial as you think there is. There's money on both sides. And therein lies the problem. It takes what should be a sound scientific endeavour, and then politicises and economises the hell out of it. If it was valid science before, we can't find it now. Instead, we get propoganda (your term) billed as a documentary and sold as entertainment by a politician. Assuming AGW is right, this is like putting shit on a diamond. It may be valuable, but it stinks.
A free browser? Cool, so I could download it and, say, run it under wine, completely legitly? No? (If wine won't run it due to lack of support of needed APIs, that'd be different.)
Same goes for the media player. It's free when I can decouple it from the OS it's embedded in, and run it in a compatible environment. Lack of support for other OS APIs, however, does not make it non-free. I'm fine with being able to attempt to run it under wine legally. They don't have to support wine.
$75 for popcorn? You mean the theatres will give us a discount? Awesome!
GP owns a mattress store, you insensitive clod.
:-P
You've obviously never lived in Toronto. They think they're not only the centre of the universe, but that "Canada" and "Toronto" are the same thing.
Those who have actually passed (the local version of) geography assume that because "Ottawa" is in "Canada" that it must be a suburb of Toronto.
I think you have it backwards. We already are without those restrictions simply by using another distro. This is taking GNU/Linux to a new architecture, a new way of operating. If you don't like it, there's still only about 20,000 other distros to pick from, so go there instead.
More likely is that any advance seen here would be added to the other distros post-haste. And that already is happening with chromium - the JS, rendering, and security models are already available on other distros before Chrome OS was even opened up, let alone released.
This is just Google entering the Linux-distro market in an Apple-like way: bundling everything (hardware, software) as a unit to provide a better end-user experience to their target market. If you don't like Macs, don't buy one. If you don't like Chrome OS, don't buy one. I know some people for whom this would be awesome. Just not me.
So it is a set of hippie scientist that are obviously overconcerned with the figures they are measuring versus 400 trillion dollars worth of people 100% concerned with next quarter's financial report, combined with all people that like their way of life as it is know thank-you-very-much.
And the truth will set you free. Or, it will annihilate you. Depends on whether you're overconcerned based on facts, or on massaging the facts in an unsupportable manner.
We all know that when we get our raw data, we have outliers. We get that. But that doesn't mean you cover up that the data ever existed. It means you publish the data, add in your explanation that you believe this to be an outlier (and maybe why), and merely don't use it when trying to approximate a slope, curve, whatever. That allows for peer review, including others who may come to a different conclusion about which data points are the outliers. And from there, we can have a healthy scientific discourse, and come to a conclusion which could be unchanged from your original theory and better supporting it. But when you don't publish the raw data, basically railroading peers to review only that which you deem relevant to your theory, you doom your peers to your viewpoint, and undermine the entire scientific process. And then you start sounding like a scientologist rather than a scientist.
Sorry, but I have a hard time understanding how, when we can't even predict tomorrow's weather with any sense of accuracy ("It'll be five degrees and sunny" -- and then it's 2 and snowing), we know what it's going to be like over the next 20, 50, or 100 years. The error bars just simply have to be overshadowing the predicted temperatures.
Great. And now those people will be redirected here. On one hand, it is like cleaning up the internet. On the other hand, you'll get all those pervs to come here and leave comments, drastically reducing the signal-to-noise ratio to basically zer... er, nevermind. Carry on.
It's not that I missed your point, it's that I dismissed it. Sound is working fine for both my machine (amd64) and my wife's (x86), even with my daughter's avid use of the Disney Princess (flash-based) site, and all other things related to a 3-year-old girl's interests.
Mostly, I use amarok all day long, though other applications don't seem to have issues, either (dragon, sox, flash in either firefox or konqueror, wesnoth, ...). And sharing hasn't been an issue thus far, either.
At the moment, my only issue, which isn't actually with KDE, is that X has regressed a particular bug going from 1.6 to 1.7. And, also not with KDE, is that my video driver doesn't fully support OpenGL, so I don't get all the pretty playthings in KDE (though at least 4.3 gracefully tells me it doesn't work, unlike 4.0 which tried anyway and crashed).
Oddly, it actually does. I've enabled both the "Dialog Parent" and "Dim Inactive" desktop effects, basically darkening everything other than where my focus is, which, in effect, makes that application whiter and brighter than everything else. That contrast gives the illusion of whiter/brighter, which has actually helped my productivity on the machine.
Making the whites whiter and the brights brighter does seem to be part of their direction.
I have no idea why "a low end non power user" would know or care what their display resolution is.
"Is there a way I can make my screen bigger?"
"The power went out, and when I turned my computer on, everything was really big and now I have to scroll to see anything."
...
I don't know what end users you know, but the ones I know definitely care :)
I've never seen xorg.conf get corrupted the way the windows registry can. And that's probably partly because the xorg.conf is not open in read/write mode, nor with pending changes currently cached by some part of the system (fs cache, hd cache, etc.). Because it's read-only, owned by root (which you're usually not logged in as), and, heck, not even opened after X loads up, it's highly unlikely to be damaged by a power failure. Meanwhile, Windows keeps that information in the registry, which is probably opened in read/write mode at all times, with far too much access given to normal applications that may damage this particular part of the registry, and with pending writes that may be interrupted by the power failure, resulting in a partially corrupted registry. So you need to know how to do that on Windows.
That said, I'd simply point them to krandr (I'm assuming kde here, though I suspect there's a gnome equivalent) and let them play with it. It sits nicely in the system tray, too. Dynamic changes to the resolution? Just as easy as on Windows. Like anything else, though, only once you know where to look. (krandr will remember its setting and go back to it during log-in, so it's still permanent even though you don't have write access to the xorg.conf file. Just like things should be.)
Welcome to straight-forward discrimination.
FTFY