If you filled / to the brim, your partitioning scheme simply sucked, and if you filled/home you need to either buy more disks or delete some redundant fluff.
Of course there is space wasted - whatever is in the / partition is not available in the/home partition and vice versa. Got tons of/tmp files - you might up fill up / and cause the system to crap itself despite having gigs of free space in/home.
Profits are for the corporate officers, all that other stuff is the same pablum they've been saying for decades instead of paying employees more money. All that stuff is great and is a necessary part of a good job, but when the focus is on the fluff that's just a way to keep the peons from focusing on the dollars.
Yes, I know what you are "suppossed" to do, it is a hassle that I do not need to do with ubuntu. Next up is the argument that I "should" do all that regardless of distribution to which I say my level of backups is sufficient for my needs even if it is not sufficient for Mint's needs.
I'm running Mint now, I think it is MInt 13 or maybe 12. I would have upgraded a long time ago except that in place upgrades are not supported. If I had known that, I would never have left ubuntu for Mint.
Next time I "upgrade" I'm just going to go back to Ubuntu so I don't have to deal with that hassle anymore. In place upgrades always worked fine for me on Ubuntu since I would wait a month or two after release for all the other guinea pigs to work through any problems.
Why, for example, the current president of the NRA is under the impression that just owning guns (I'm all for it, but I'm a realist) will help in fighting tyranny. ANd he used the Revolutionary war as a example.
He has to use the revolutionary war because if he pointed to anything more modern like the multi-billion dollar failures in vietnam, iraq and afghanistan he would cause so much cognitive dissonance in his core constituency that their heads would asplode like scanners.
Note that I'm aware that guns were not the only weapons the underdogs used in those fights, but they were a necessary component.
I think we do go overboard on expensive testing done only as a CYA for malpractice suits, which is certainly inefficient and wasteful,
I used to believe that until a few years ago when a handful of states like Texas did "tort reform" to limit liability to something rather small, like $100K. It had barely any affect on the cost of healthcare in those states.
Since then I've come to believe that the problem is money - all the healthcare companies in the business to make a profit. It is in their interest to go overboard on procedures and diagnostics, especially when they have been able to move a significant part of those diagnostics in house. I've seen it myself when I went to the doctor with a sore throat with symptoms that clearly contra-indicated strep but they wanted to test for strep anyway - I later found out they had recently bought the equipment to do strep testing in house.
Here is a good article that examines massive health care costs in a town adjacent to one with normal health care costs.
> I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
I bet they don't have immunity to a baseball bat. If any parents actually had a kid injured at one of those intersections - even if the light timings were not at fault - someone may well decide to take justice into their own hands...
Maybe not only the patent office, but both the company that filed or bought the patent should get to pay. Not just the legal fees, but a penalty on top. That should make people consider more carefully when they buy or file a patent.
Forget fining the patent office -- all that will do is reduce the funding available for patent examiners to do their jobs causing the reverse effect of letting more bad patents slip through. But a fine on the patent holder for certain kinds of invalidations sounds good to me. It is my understanding that it is the patent filer's responsibility to seek out prior art as part of the application process. If a patent is invalidated for what is essentially failure to follow the filing process correctly then I think a big fine is appropriate.
What we do not want is to turn the system into one where a big company can simply out-lawyer a small patent holder and then add insult to injury by forcing them to pay a fine too. That increased risk would discourage little guys with validly patentable inventions from filing in the first place (or force them to settle out of the court on poor terms).
> I work in a "right to work" state in the US. So, I don't even have to worry about half the stuff a European employer will have to when it comes to letting people go.
Being in a "right to work state" doesn't change what you have to do to hire or fire someone. It just means that employers are forbidden from entering into exclusive labor contracts with organizations like unions. If the employee is a union member (which can be the case even in right to work states) then you have to abide by whatever contractual obligations the company has negotiated with the union.
How is there no mention of if there was or was not a warrant for this in the summary? More over, how the hell does the TFA not even use the word once?
These are not recordings of calls, they are records of what numbers were called at what time and for how long. It is has been long established law in the US that collecting this level of information does not require a warrant. This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.
I think this area of law needs to be revisited, the amount of information that can be gleaned by looking at call records and cross referencing them with other databases is far beyond what the court could have envisioned at the time of the rulings that made such collections legal. But it isn't likely that we'll see any change on that front for a while.
> Google "at will vs. right to work" and learn something
No, you need to learn something - that "at will" is orthogonal to "right to work."
Right to work is about hiring people - it means that employers are forbidden from signing exclusivity contracts with groups like unions. At will is about terminating employment - it means you can quit or be fired without cause as long as there are no terms in the employment contract that say otherwise.
All 50 states in the US are "at will" states - most, but not all, are "right to work" states too.
> Are you really a conservative? or is it just a cartoonish parody of one?
He's the face of the modern republican party - remember their embrace of "I built that" during the last campaign? Maybe that doesn't qualify as conservative anymore. Either way it is a sad state of affairs.
> it will make sense to rack up the biggest debt you can and stay in college as long as you possibly can stretch, > and then find a low enough paying job so that you won't be repaying too much
Wow, you must be a hardcore tax evader to believe that. Deliberately getting a low paying job so as not to have to pay back a gubermint loan. As if not paying the loan is worth wasting ten years of your life as a burger flipper.
one year they decide which animals will be culled and the unlucky beast gets a bullet to the brain. this is what google is doing to the users of certain services.
No it isn't. Those cattle get sold for their meat and make a profit for the rancher. These users are no longer sources of profit for google. They aren't being culled, they are being starved to death - a death that doesn't help anyone, neither the rancher nor the cattle benefit.
> Because the pics DO disappear when you open them. Both from your phone and their servers > There's just an exploit where rooted phones can view/copy the pictures before they are opened/deleted.
No. This is explicitly about recovering the images AFTER they have been viewed. Grabbing them before they have been viewed is old news.
This guy has proved that "deleted" just means renamed and pending actual delete. Even then it sounds like an undelete file tool could get some back. Snapchat should be overwriting the files instead of just renaming them and queuing for delete in the future...
> Considering the problems we have with illegal immigration
Mostly a manufactured crisis - exacerbated by these policies. If work visas were not required then 'illegal' immigrants would be able to work for higher wages and not drag down wage levels due to the threat of deportation. Not like the government ever cared significantly about them driving wages down anyway.
> However, simply producing a passport is a reasonable and long standing requirement.
Nope, it is pretty new, like starting in 2008. Prior to that you could enter from mexico or canada with just a regular driver's license.
> So this seems like a silly place to consider as a steady-state CO standard.
If you lived on the volcano, you'd know better. Wind direction is very consistent and it is precisely because the volcano is so large that contamination is rare - it only comes out of the vents and those are few and far between.
Slashdot Mirror
First they came for Weev. ...
Then they came for the reporters.
Scientology has been the only group that has fought the IRS and won
Huh? The IRS loses all the time. Even if you just narrow the list down to religious groups pushing the boundaries of what qualifies for the religious tax-exempt status, the IRS lost to a church that was endorsing political candidates.
If you filled / to the brim, your partitioning scheme simply sucked, and if you filled /home you need to either buy more disks or delete some redundant fluff.
Lol, nerdrage for the fail.
Of course there is space wasted - whatever is in the / partition is not available in the /home partition and vice versa. Got tons of /tmp files - you might up fill up / and cause the system to crap itself despite having gigs of free space in /home.
If you don't partition - well - you should - if you still don't want to then at least stop complaining.
No, partitioning is for multi-user systems with long uptimes. For single-user systems it is just a waste of space.
Profits are for the corporate officers, all that other stuff is the same pablum they've been saying for decades instead of paying employees more money. All that stuff is great and is a necessary part of a good job, but when the focus is on the fluff that's just a way to keep the peons from focusing on the dollars.
Yes, I know what you are "suppossed" to do, it is a hassle that I do not need to do with ubuntu. Next up is the argument that I "should" do all that regardless of distribution to which I say my level of backups is sufficient for my needs even if it is not sufficient for Mint's needs.
I'm running Mint now, I think it is MInt 13 or maybe 12. I would have upgraded a long time ago except that in place upgrades are not supported. If I had known that, I would never have left ubuntu for Mint.
Next time I "upgrade" I'm just going to go back to Ubuntu so I don't have to deal with that hassle anymore. In place upgrades always worked fine for me on Ubuntu since I would wait a month or two after release for all the other guinea pigs to work through any problems.
Why, for example, the current president of the NRA is under the impression that just owning guns (I'm all for it, but I'm a realist) will help in fighting tyranny. ANd he used the Revolutionary war as a example.
He has to use the revolutionary war because if he pointed to anything more modern like the multi-billion dollar failures in vietnam, iraq and afghanistan he would cause so much cognitive dissonance in his core constituency that their heads would asplode like scanners.
Note that I'm aware that guns were not the only weapons the underdogs used in those fights, but they were a necessary component.
I think we do go overboard on expensive testing done only as a CYA for malpractice suits, which is certainly inefficient and wasteful,
I used to believe that until a few years ago when a handful of states like Texas did "tort reform" to limit liability to something rather small, like $100K. It had barely any affect on the cost of healthcare in those states.
Since then I've come to believe that the problem is money - all the healthcare companies in the business to make a profit. It is in their interest to go overboard on procedures and diagnostics, especially when they have been able to move a significant part of those diagnostics in house. I've seen it myself when I went to the doctor with a sore throat with symptoms that clearly contra-indicated strep but they wanted to test for strep anyway - I later found out they had recently bought the equipment to do strep testing in house.
Here is a good article that examines massive health care costs in a town adjacent to one with normal health care costs.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
> If it's getting cheaper for companies to run robot factories in the US than to employ Chinese labourers
It's even getting cheaper to use robots in china than to employ chinese laborers.
You are correct, sir!
> I bet you that they have immunity of some sort. That is the problem
I bet they don't have immunity to a baseball bat. If any parents actually had a kid injured at one of those intersections - even if the light timings were not at fault - someone may well decide to take justice into their own hands...
Maybe not only the patent office, but both the company that filed or bought the patent should get to pay. Not just the legal fees, but a penalty on top. That should make people consider more carefully when they buy or file a patent.
Forget fining the patent office -- all that will do is reduce the funding available for patent examiners to do their jobs causing the reverse effect of letting more bad patents slip through. But a fine on the patent holder for certain kinds of invalidations sounds good to me. It is my understanding that it is the patent filer's responsibility to seek out prior art as part of the application process. If a patent is invalidated for what is essentially failure to follow the filing process correctly then I think a big fine is appropriate.
What we do not want is to turn the system into one where a big company can simply out-lawyer a small patent holder and then add insult to injury by forcing them to pay a fine too. That increased risk would discourage little guys with validly patentable inventions from filing in the first place (or force them to settle out of the court on poor terms).
> I work in a "right to work" state in the US. So, I don't even have to worry about half the stuff a European employer will have to when it comes to letting people go.
Being in a "right to work state" doesn't change what you have to do to hire or fire someone. It just means that employers are forbidden from entering into exclusive labor contracts with organizations like unions. If the employee is a union member (which can be the case even in right to work states) then you have to abide by whatever contractual obligations the company has negotiated with the union.
How is there no mention of if there was or was not a warrant for this in the summary? More over, how the hell does the TFA not even use the word once?
These are not recordings of calls, they are records of what numbers were called at what time and for how long. It is has been long established law in the US that collecting this level of information does not require a warrant. This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.
I think this area of law needs to be revisited, the amount of information that can be gleaned by looking at call records and cross referencing them with other databases is far beyond what the court could have envisioned at the time of the rulings that made such collections legal. But it isn't likely that we'll see any change on that front for a while.
> Google "at will vs. right to work" and learn something
No, you need to learn something - that "at will" is orthogonal to "right to work."
Right to work is about hiring people - it means that employers are forbidden from signing exclusivity contracts with groups like unions. At will is about terminating employment - it means you can quit or be fired without cause as long as there are no terms in the employment contract that say otherwise.
All 50 states in the US are "at will" states - most, but not all, are "right to work" states too.
If only there was a book of instructions for how to eat them!
> Are you really a conservative? or is it just a cartoonish parody of one?
He's the face of the modern republican party - remember their embrace of "I built that" during the last campaign? Maybe that doesn't qualify as conservative anymore. Either way it is a sad state of affairs.
> it will make sense to rack up the biggest debt you can and stay in college as long as you possibly can stretch,
> and then find a low enough paying job so that you won't be repaying too much
Wow, you must be a hardcore tax evader to believe that. Deliberately getting a low paying job so as not to have to pay back a gubermint loan. As if not paying the loan is worth wasting ten years of your life as a burger flipper.
one year they decide which animals will be culled and the unlucky beast gets a bullet to the brain. this is what google is doing to the users of certain services.
No it isn't. Those cattle get sold for their meat and make a profit for the rancher. These users are no longer sources of profit for google. They aren't being culled, they are being starved to death - a death that doesn't help anyone, neither the rancher nor the cattle benefit.
> Washington is an 'at will' state for employment...
All US states are "at will" states.
> Because the pics DO disappear when you open them. Both from your phone and their servers
> There's just an exploit where rooted phones can view/copy the pictures before they are opened/deleted.
No. This is explicitly about recovering the images AFTER they have been viewed. Grabbing them before they have been viewed is old news.
This guy has proved that "deleted" just means renamed and pending actual delete. Even then it sounds like an undelete file tool could get some back. Snapchat should be overwriting the files instead of just renaming them and queuing for delete in the future...
> Considering the problems we have with illegal immigration
Mostly a manufactured crisis - exacerbated by these policies. If work visas were not required then 'illegal' immigrants would be able to work for higher wages and not drag down wage levels due to the threat of deportation. Not like the government ever cared significantly about them driving wages down anyway.
> However, simply producing a passport is a reasonable and long standing requirement.
Nope, it is pretty new, like starting in 2008. Prior to that you could enter from mexico or canada with just a regular driver's license.
> So this seems like a silly place to consider as a steady-state CO standard.
If you lived on the volcano, you'd know better. Wind direction is very consistent and it is precisely because the volcano is so large that contamination is rare - it only comes out of the vents and those are few and far between.
How do scientists know that Mauna Loa's volcanic emissions don't affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?