We see this in America. as Hispanics are growing, there is a massive push back to make sure that "'Merica don't be a Spanish Speaking country"
The Quebecois point out that the area was settled first by France (neglecting the minor problem of all of the natives already there), and that in fact the French made an end-run around the English settlements down the Mississippi River all the way to the southern border at New Orleans (which is why the early US had to buy all that land as the Louisana Purchase). Quebec only started speaking English when English armies took it over by force.
Similarly, the US was founded primarily by English-speaking British colonies, which is why it speaks English - so dominantly that nobody ever thought to make it a rule, because it was simply *assumed*. All of our founding documents are in English. In earlier times, like when my own mother and grandparents arrived here, it was assumed that one adapted to the language of the country one had moved to rather than insist that the country's government adapt its language to every disparate immigrant. It's one of the things that distinguishes the people of a "country" together as a group.
As to why French is supposedly the language of diplomacy and international discourse . . . good salesmanship?:-)
What if it was working perfectly well for you, and you were completely happy with the product, and someone BROKE it for you? You knew how it worked, you knew how to use it, and suddenly the rug was pulled out from under you. Oh, and by the way, they also changed the recipe for Coke and changed the rice crisps in your Nestles Crunch to soybeans.
This is the major disconnect with open source, and a large reason non-programmers won't accept Linux: Developers change things because they think constant change is the only way to show activity, in a manner that only a handful of developers want or even understand, rather than accepting that most products in the real world achieve popularity and try hard to STAY THAT WAY. Nobody remakes the recipe for Cheerios just because "it hasn't changed lately, we need to show some progress". They try to make more flavors of Cheerios, they try to make the same Cheerios for less cost, but they do their best to keep the core user experience the same because that's what people are buying.
1. Microsoft was *proud* of ignoring any achievements or lessons-learned from the mainframe era, and so - unlike Newton's "stand on the shoulders of giants" attitude - they re-made many of the mistakes in file and operating systems.
2. Then they did things in ways intended purely to break systems for anyone else. For example, in moving from DOS to Windows, Microsoft didn't just *allow* spaces in file names, they *enforced* the "My Programs" and other folder names with spaces in them - GUARANTEEING that all existing programs relying on spaces as delimiters would fail.
3. Through all of this, they ignored security issues, and added ways to hide their own garbage, thereby actively adding more security holes.
4. They spent more effort designing things to lock systems to hardware, making it hard-to-impossible for even the most legitimate and legal customers to migrate their applications and data from one computer to another purely for technology update. Then they have to forcibly break older systems to convince to leave what has been working for them (since migrating is such a pain).
Between passive-aggressive and willful ignorance, Microsoft helped keep the small computer system environment many years backward on its development path.
The very fact that she *thought* she was being surveilled, and didn't like it, is more important than whether she was. After all, what you *think* is more important for "stand your ground" defense than what actually *is*.
Very true. If Microsoft decided that, say, *any* copy of Tor was malicious, or anything listed on Sourceforge . . . . Or any.iso with a name that matches a movie . .
Every month's update includes an updated "malicious software" remover. Normal people who have their machines auto-update would get it automatically, and *if* the corrupted Tor wasn't hiding its existence in some way, it could be found and removed. That would be a legitimate use of the trust customers put in MS (as with other antivirus providers). If it turns out there's a backdoor, the way Amazon removed books from peoples' Kindles, then the entire Windows infrastructure would be unsafe.
The old line is to buy real estate, because nobody's making it any more. Perhaps part of the problem is that expanding population, which is often at the end of the socioeconomic scale that still thinks we need extra farmhands (and perhaps, in some parts of the world, they do). The first world worries about having fewer young people to support the aging retiring population; yet it's only a problem because the support is calculated from the young people's wages, not from the society's production. OTOOH how much of that "production" is only in account ledgers? Developing new kinds of pet rocks supposedly makes money, but doesn't really "produce" much.
Various politicians and media outlets seem to emphasize the "evils" of aiding the long-term unemployed. As an engineer who has been laid off more than once due to mergers and acquisitions causing a company division to be cut by 2/3 or eliminated completely, I have a little more sympathy for areas where a major employer has shut down and there's no other local work, precisely because the major employers' payroll was what used to flow through the local economy.
Buckminster Fuller wrote in the 1960s that "there IS enough to go around" and that our entire societal concept of work and worth would have to change. It's been 50 years, and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
Additional caution: Some people are allergic to lube, especially anyone known to have allergies to antibiotics - even the supposedly hypoallergenic stuff has preservative.
Compute clusters tend not to last all that long before they get dismantled, as its not economical in terms of performance/watt to keep a cluster of old hardware running.
Replacement on PCs where I work is 5 years *minimum*. I happen to be running on an 8-year-old PC right now (with an upgraded hard drive). Come out to the real business world, and see how real companies manage their money.
I would mod parent up 5 points if I could. In the real world, you don't "deprecate" something that many of your users rely on - or, rather, you may call it nasty names, but you don't suddenly remove it and leave people non-functional with little warning. Yes, it's not the latest hottest coolest trendiest routine/library/language, but it WORKS. People keep posting "PROJECT is dead/dying because there's not as much activity"; how about thinking about it as "PROJECT is finally stable and reliable and doesn't need to be f'ing *fixed* every week."
I manage to avoid putting my bike helmet in puddles, and I also avoid biking in downpours. The worst problem I'm going to have is sweat. A tremendous factor in utility is price - I buy a $120 or $140 helmet every three years; if this thing costs $40 I wouldn't mind buying a new one each year.
I did RTFA. I work with embedded systems, and when I look at the picture I question the thickness of that circuit board with those chips and surface-mount resistors etc. on it to fit into a normal SD card slot. Though I'll grant that if they put the dice directly on the plastic, essentially making an SD-sized multi-die SOC (which I believe the highest-density SD cards already do), it could be made the right size.
It doesn't say "in an SD form factor". It says "the size of an SD card". Like "The size of a US quarter only not round." Or "the size of just about every microcomputer chip, like the STM32 on the board here on my desk."
Many years ago, someone from Bell Labs (as I remember) pointed out the core problem and complexity of the phone system: It was not really built to connect communications, it was built to METER AND BILL for wire connections, and as such had no particular reason to improve efficiency on connection or operation of phone calls. Even with digitized voice, channel-associated T1 signaling worked just fine, and who cared that it corrupted your data and lowered your effective bandwidth by 1/8th? Fiber T4 just carried repackaged T1 frames, making it easier to drop out at the far end. Europe, on the other hand, went to ISDN much earlier. That's why the ideas for packetized voice were used in Europe first, and why VOIP - their logical descendant - became a way *around* the phone system rather than the way to *improve* the phone system.
So they're applying the same tried-and-true marketing to the Internet. "It's an 800 number, it's free, the other side is paying for it . .." when of course the customer *always* winds up paying for it somewhere in the cost of the products and services. In this case, it's even sneakier, because you could be subscribing to a service which offers off-the-cap service, but it's not "the company" paying for the bandwidth - it's your subscription money going into AT&T's pocket from the other side.
In some ways, pay-per-use would be more sensible, if we trusted that we were really paying for our *own* usage. If I choose to use more water or electricity, I pay more, and I trust that the meter is only metering my lines. (And the one person on the block running a porn service should really be paying for it instead of trashing everybody's throughput.) But that model was tossed out long ago when ISPs decided to include advertisements. There's no way I'm willing to pay for bandwidth that was used to send me advertisements I never wanted. It hearkens back to the early days of fax, when it took court cases to point out that the fax owner pays for the fax and the line and the expensive paper, so sending out junk mail to faxes is spending the fax owner's money without his permission, or "theft". (Too bad that logic didn't go back to robo-calls and answering machines.)
This program should be considered fraud. AT&T promised "unlimited" usage, reneged, imposed a cap which is virtually impossible to validate, and is now charging someone extra to get around the limitations they themselves imposed.
Crowdfunding is similar to buying raffle tickets at a Church bazaar and the SEC has no business messing with those, either.
Sorry, nope. Prizes for a raffle should be obtained before tickets are sold, so that everyone knows what they're buying.
Umm, sorry, nope to your nope. Context is important, and people know what they are getting here - normally people buy raffle tickets simply to support the organization, without regard to the prize at all. The most basic 50/50 raffle - like state lotteries - doesn't specify the exact prize because it is unknown until ticket sales are cut off. I have also seen large-prize raffles that are dependent on a minimum of tickets being sold (in one case, the raffle would buy a car at a generous discount [the dealer's donation] but the transaction would only go forward if enough tickets were sold to cover the price plus leave a profit).
This is about making sure that somebody with a spare hundred dollars has the bare minimum information available to make an informed decision. It is analogous to standardized labeling requirements on groceries.
I agree - Kickstarter et al should clearly label "This is a gift or donation, not a preorder, not an investment." There, we're done here, no regulation needed. (And all of the projects I've backed said something like that already.)
This reminds me of the old story about college roommates going to a party. The guy who drove immediately walks up to a babe and whispers in her ear, and gets slapped. Walks up to another, gets slapped again. The other guy shakes his head and goes to get a beer and find a conversation. Later, having gotten nowhere and wondering about his ride home, he looks for the first guy and can't find him anywhere. Finally the driver reappears with a smile on his face, and in no mood to leave. "Why not? Aren't you getting slapped a lot?" "Yes, but I'm getting laid a lot, too."
Slashdot Mirror
We see this in America. as Hispanics are growing, there is a massive push back to make sure that "'Merica don't be a Spanish Speaking country"
The Quebecois point out that the area was settled first by France (neglecting the minor problem of all of the natives already there), and that in fact the French made an end-run around the English settlements down the Mississippi River all the way to the southern border at New Orleans (which is why the early US had to buy all that land as the Louisana Purchase). Quebec only started speaking English when English armies took it over by force.
:-)
Similarly, the US was founded primarily by English-speaking British colonies, which is why it speaks English - so dominantly that nobody ever thought to make it a rule, because it was simply *assumed*. All of our founding documents are in English. In earlier times, like when my own mother and grandparents arrived here, it was assumed that one adapted to the language of the country one had moved to rather than insist that the country's government adapt its language to every disparate immigrant. It's one of the things that distinguishes the people of a "country" together as a group.
As to why French is supposedly the language of diplomacy and international discourse . . . good salesmanship?
But remember, when you're programming on a DG Eclipse, Speed kills.
... Fatwa's aren't really laws as much as they are rules that may or may not be followed depending on whether an individual Muslim wants to.
The same way as an individual Catholic can decide whether or not to go along with a papal excommunication?
Unless it's *exactly* a one in a million chance.
What if it was working perfectly well for you, and you were completely happy with the product, and someone BROKE it for you? You knew how it worked, you knew how to use it, and suddenly the rug was pulled out from under you. Oh, and by the way, they also changed the recipe for Coke and changed the rice crisps in your Nestles Crunch to soybeans.
This is the major disconnect with open source, and a large reason non-programmers won't accept Linux: Developers change things because they think constant change is the only way to show activity, in a manner that only a handful of developers want or even understand, rather than accepting that most products in the real world achieve popularity and try hard to STAY THAT WAY. Nobody remakes the recipe for Cheerios just because "it hasn't changed lately, we need to show some progress". They try to make more flavors of Cheerios, they try to make the same Cheerios for less cost, but they do their best to keep the core user experience the same because that's what people are buying.
1. Microsoft was *proud* of ignoring any achievements or lessons-learned from the mainframe era, and so - unlike Newton's "stand on the shoulders of giants" attitude - they re-made many of the mistakes in file and operating systems.
2. Then they did things in ways intended purely to break systems for anyone else. For example, in moving from DOS to Windows, Microsoft didn't just *allow* spaces in file names, they *enforced* the "My Programs" and other folder names with spaces in them - GUARANTEEING that all existing programs relying on spaces as delimiters would fail.
3. Through all of this, they ignored security issues, and added ways to hide their own garbage, thereby actively adding more security holes.
4. They spent more effort designing things to lock systems to hardware, making it hard-to-impossible for even the most legitimate and legal customers to migrate their applications and data from one computer to another purely for technology update. Then they have to forcibly break older systems to convince to leave what has been working for them (since migrating is such a pain).
Between passive-aggressive and willful ignorance, Microsoft helped keep the small computer system environment many years backward on its development path.
The very fact that she *thought* she was being surveilled, and didn't like it, is more important than whether she was. After all, what you *think* is more important for "stand your ground" defense than what actually *is*.
Very true. If Microsoft decided that, say, *any* copy of Tor was malicious, or anything listed on Sourceforge . . . . Or any .iso with a name that matches a movie . .
Every month's update includes an updated "malicious software" remover. Normal people who have their machines auto-update would get it automatically, and *if* the corrupted Tor wasn't hiding its existence in some way, it could be found and removed. That would be a legitimate use of the trust customers put in MS (as with other antivirus providers). If it turns out there's a backdoor, the way Amazon removed books from peoples' Kindles, then the entire Windows infrastructure would be unsafe.
The old line is to buy real estate, because nobody's making it any more. Perhaps part of the problem is that expanding population, which is often at the end of the socioeconomic scale that still thinks we need extra farmhands (and perhaps, in some parts of the world, they do). The first world worries about having fewer young people to support the aging retiring population; yet it's only a problem because the support is calculated from the young people's wages, not from the society's production. OTOOH how much of that "production" is only in account ledgers? Developing new kinds of pet rocks supposedly makes money, but doesn't really "produce" much.
Various politicians and media outlets seem to emphasize the "evils" of aiding the long-term unemployed. As an engineer who has been laid off more than once due to mergers and acquisitions causing a company division to be cut by 2/3 or eliminated completely, I have a little more sympathy for areas where a major employer has shut down and there's no other local work, precisely because the major employers' payroll was what used to flow through the local economy.
Buckminster Fuller wrote in the 1960s that "there IS enough to go around" and that our entire societal concept of work and worth would have to change. It's been 50 years, and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
Additional caution: Some people are allergic to lube, especially anyone known to have allergies to antibiotics - even the supposedly hypoallergenic stuff has preservative.
... for women, but they seem to hate them as much as men.
Umm . . . not true. Some things are better if they take longer. And you can get textured condoms which are more effective.
Compute clusters tend not to last all that long before they get dismantled, as its not economical in terms of performance/watt to keep a cluster of old hardware running.
Replacement on PCs where I work is 5 years *minimum*. I happen to be running on an 8-year-old PC right now (with an upgraded hard drive). Come out to the real business world, and see how real companies manage their money.
I would mod parent up 5 points if I could. In the real world, you don't "deprecate" something that many of your users rely on - or, rather, you may call it nasty names, but you don't suddenly remove it and leave people non-functional with little warning. Yes, it's not the latest hottest coolest trendiest routine/library/language, but it WORKS. People keep posting "PROJECT is dead/dying because there's not as much activity"; how about thinking about it as "PROJECT is finally stable and reliable and doesn't need to be f'ing *fixed* every week."
I manage to avoid putting my bike helmet in puddles, and I also avoid biking in downpours. The worst problem I'm going to have is sweat. A tremendous factor in utility is price - I buy a $120 or $140 helmet every three years; if this thing costs $40 I wouldn't mind buying a new one each year.
I did RTFA. I work with embedded systems, and when I look at the picture I question the thickness of that circuit board with those chips and surface-mount resistors etc. on it to fit into a normal SD card slot. Though I'll grant that if they put the dice directly on the plastic, essentially making an SD-sized multi-die SOC (which I believe the highest-density SD cards already do), it could be made the right size.
It doesn't say "in an SD form factor". It says "the size of an SD card". Like "The size of a US quarter only not round." Or "the size of just about every microcomputer chip, like the STM32 on the board here on my desk."
Many years ago, someone from Bell Labs (as I remember) pointed out the core problem and complexity of the phone system: It was not really built to connect communications, it was built to METER AND BILL for wire connections, and as such had no particular reason to improve efficiency on connection or operation of phone calls. Even with digitized voice, channel-associated T1 signaling worked just fine, and who cared that it corrupted your data and lowered your effective bandwidth by 1/8th? Fiber T4 just carried repackaged T1 frames, making it easier to drop out at the far end. Europe, on the other hand, went to ISDN much earlier. That's why the ideas for packetized voice were used in Europe first, and why VOIP - their logical descendant - became a way *around* the phone system rather than the way to *improve* the phone system.
." when of course the customer *always* winds up paying for it somewhere in the cost of the products and services. In this case, it's even sneakier, because you could be subscribing to a service which offers off-the-cap service, but it's not "the company" paying for the bandwidth - it's your subscription money going into AT&T's pocket from the other side.
So they're applying the same tried-and-true marketing to the Internet. "It's an 800 number, it's free, the other side is paying for it . .
In some ways, pay-per-use would be more sensible, if we trusted that we were really paying for our *own* usage. If I choose to use more water or electricity, I pay more, and I trust that the meter is only metering my lines. (And the one person on the block running a porn service should really be paying for it instead of trashing everybody's throughput.) But that model was tossed out long ago when ISPs decided to include advertisements. There's no way I'm willing to pay for bandwidth that was used to send me advertisements I never wanted. It hearkens back to the early days of fax, when it took court cases to point out that the fax owner pays for the fax and the line and the expensive paper, so sending out junk mail to faxes is spending the fax owner's money without his permission, or "theft". (Too bad that logic didn't go back to robo-calls and answering machines.)
This program should be considered fraud. AT&T promised "unlimited" usage, reneged, imposed a cap which is virtually impossible to validate, and is now charging someone extra to get around the limitations they themselves imposed.
Please post a video.
Crowdfunding is similar to buying raffle tickets at a Church bazaar and the SEC has no business messing with those, either.
Sorry, nope. Prizes for a raffle should be obtained before tickets are sold, so that everyone knows what they're buying.
Umm, sorry, nope to your nope. Context is important, and people know what they are getting here - normally people buy raffle tickets simply to support the organization, without regard to the prize at all. The most basic 50/50 raffle - like state lotteries - doesn't specify the exact prize because it is unknown until ticket sales are cut off. I have also seen large-prize raffles that are dependent on a minimum of tickets being sold (in one case, the raffle would buy a car at a generous discount [the dealer's donation] but the transaction would only go forward if enough tickets were sold to cover the price plus leave a profit).
This is about making sure that somebody with a spare hundred dollars has the bare minimum information available to make an informed decision. It is analogous to standardized labeling requirements on groceries.
I agree - Kickstarter et al should clearly label "This is a gift or donation, not a preorder, not an investment." There, we're done here, no regulation needed. (And all of the projects I've backed said something like that already.)
Did you just violate copyright on the Bible??????
And yet you *still* can't do a selective backup/restore.
This reminds me of the old story about college roommates going to a party. The guy who drove immediately walks up to a babe and whispers in her ear, and gets slapped. Walks up to another, gets slapped again. The other guy shakes his head and goes to get a beer and find a conversation. Later, having gotten nowhere and wondering about his ride home, he looks for the first guy and can't find him anywhere. Finally the driver reappears with a smile on his face, and in no mood to leave. "Why not? Aren't you getting slapped a lot?" "Yes, but I'm getting laid a lot, too."