Exposure is not really variable 1 to 100 type thing. It's more like a 0 or 1 type thing. If you've exposed your address to one spammer you've very likely exposed yourself to all of them and they don't forget. It's probably next to impossible to not expose your email address to spammers. It's not worth the effort to conceal it.
I worry more about exposing it to half wit Internet trolls than I do exposing it to spammers.
I had a large collection of VCR tapes that I recently decided to preserve in digital format. Everything from kids cartoons, recordings of birthday parties and family gatherings, to the Stargate and Terminator movies.
My advice? Don't buy a new VCR. It will eat your tapes and break after about ten plays. Go find a used one from the 80's or early 90s at a yard sale or online. We found one and it has worked spectacularly despite its age. The new ones are designed to fail. Like many things, "they don't make 'em like that anymore."
Yes, but not like this. It's practically all there is. And bigger artists often only manage one hit per album if that. Contrast with Michael Jackson who had 7 in the top ten from a single album back in the '80s. People used to buy albums and be ecstatic because there was maybe one or two songs that kinda sucked. Today they wait to see which one song is worth paying for. It transitioned from having one or two songs that suck per album to having one song that doesn't suck per album. For some reason the RIIA thinks the problem is piracy. I say go find some new talent that can work a crowd and can preform without autotune.
Because most of us like having things like sewage systems, streets, and someone to get the drunk drivers off the roads. Of course, with no roads, I guess the drunk drivers wouldn't be a problem.
I Just wish they could do all that without the multi-trillion dollar price tag. I don't hate government I just hate most of ours.
I know noooo one remembers the 80's but back then there was more than one hit per artist. EACH TAPE had several songs that charted well.
We do not have this today. We're lucky to see an artist that can chart one song well. But I'm sure it's piracy that's causing it. Why haven't there been any mega stars in the last 20 years?
Customer in the store looking at over priced product: If it cost a lot of money it's got to be worth it. And Dan and Jessica have one and are proud of it. The store guy says it's good to. I'm gonna do it!
Customer after purchase: I spent a lot of money on it so I'm going to be defensive when my peers tell me it was a dumb thing to do. I will convince myself that I was justified in spending the cash. See! Others sent that much on it too... I'm not crazy! I belong to a community!
Believe it or not, an expensive price tag is a selling point. Yes it's a good quality product but the price overage is simply to turn it in to a status symbol. Like shooting a barrel of fish. They know their marketing. At least you get a decent quality product out of it (unlike some other marketing techniques).
But lets not kid ourselves. Given that so much of our stuff is made in China, it's not the fact that any particular product is made by abused workers. You probably can't buy much of anything that doesn't have some poor working conditions in some part of the chain. We just feel more guilty about it when the product happens to be a status symbol.
It's a problem with being able to run software of the user's choice. Wall it up and the problem goes away. Users are stupid therefore you make decisions for them and it becomes more secure because the primary attack vector (the user) gets cut off.
I'm not advocating a Great Wall of China but it should be a bit harder to find malware than picking some random app from the platforms officially sponsored market place.
It's worse than that. You don't have to have a "guy on the inside" for many sites. There's this myth that if you throw up a big firewall then all the applications behind it are protected. It doesn't take a genius to see that a single compromised machine on the "secured" side of the wall (not uncommon) effectively exposes all those "protected" (internal) applications to risk. Unless you're sure you can keep all your user's workstations free from compromise (good luck with that), you should just start with the assumption that your "protected" (internal) applications are exposed.
Arch Linux brings a lot to the table but in areas you wouldn't expect. If you just "try" Arch Linux you probably miss the good points. I guess you could say that it grows on you. Or maybe that it grows with you.
The biggest, most obvious thing that Arch does that differentiates it from other distributions is that it is a rolling release. When an upstream project releases a new version and calls it stable, it works its way into Arch. How does this differ from other distributions which can get newer packages by changing/adding package repositories?
Support for those new packages. Consider that with most distributions you have some users using the "officially supported" packages, some using the latest stable packages, and some using the latest development snapshots. I don't have any concrete numbers, but I suspect that most users like to be somewhere in the first two categories. With Arch Linux, the first two categories are combined, putting more users together running the same packages. In effect, more users are using the officially supported packages. Strength in numbers.
Bug reporting and processing is streamlined. There's no need for "me too with this OS release and the packages from over there" posts you see in other bug trackers. There really is a lot of effort that goes into just answering the question of if a newer version fixes the problem. When everyone is close to the current upstream, it becomes much easier to move the bug report upstream where it belongs. You still get the buffer zone between end users and developers (which catches duplicates, invalid, and too vague to be useful reports) but with much less delay simply because we know the bug is very likely relevant.
Arch Linux isn't for everyone, but just one choice. This is a funny one because with Arch you both give up some options and gain others. Right off the bat you make to the choice to stay current and close to the upstream. While this might not be as bad as some make it out to be, it's not for everyone. On the other side of the coin, you make many more choices on your own about what software you run. For example there's no KDE or Gnome version of Arch Linux. You pick that yourself.
This rolls right into another differentiating characteristic of Arch. For the most part Arch doesn't pick defaults for you. Those come from the upstream. This is interesting because it carries the effect of encouraging the user to really look at those defaults to see if they make sense. Again, Arch isn't for everyone. Some don't want to check configurations and won't even if they should. There's a lot of folks that avidly believe that the distribution should do that for you. I say Yes and no. Shouldn't those reasonable defaults be part of the upstream? I believe that distributions should spend a bit more time getting those reasonable defaults into the upstream project and only fall back to "protecting user from bad defaults" when they can't get things upstream.
This is largely a philosophy that Arch holds to. If you don't like the vanilla upstream, try to get your changes into the upstream instead of dragging around a custom patch set for all eternity. So, just the user base all using recent and mostly vanilla packages is one of the key differentiating characteristics of Arch Linux.
Beyond that there's a lot of social interaction (community) which is more or less unique in to the Arch User Repository (AUR). Unlike package repositories from other distributions which might be maintained by a small group, the AUR is maintained by the larger user base. Better than just that, it's ridiculously easy as a user to interact with the person behind something found on AUR. And that's not something that can be said with a lot of other "community ran" repositories for other distributions. When you go to grab a package off of the AUR you can't miss the built-in forum thread for that package. It's designed to be social. Again, not for everyone. But for those it is for... it's very for.
For a long time now the 2nd amendment only applies to protecting one's home from trespassers who would do harm.
The second amendment was useless for overthrowing the government the moment military weapons were better than what you could legally own. Just go ahead and try to stockpile enough anything to compete with the military. You will be put down.
TV will never be smart because it's held back by the stupid kids in the class.
I'm talking about the broadcast/cable networks and companies like Hulu.
Start with the fact that the content providers don't have a flipp'n clue what people want (a.k.a like the Music industry--wait for it TV show producers will blame technology soon enough). I'd rather watch TV shows from previous decades than the bulk of crap on the air now. I recently watched a TV series from the 60s. That's a heck of a lot of mileage for a show that's been off the air for over half a century. I watched it without advertisements because I got it off of torrent. I would have been just as happy watching it off of Hulu or one of the network sites WITH ADVERTISEMENTS. But the content, despite the technology being ridiculously available, isn't available to watch today. Ok maybe if I paid for those hundreds of cable channels and tuned in at 3AM... I could find it.
It amazes me that TV networks who have always made their money by advertising, but are so fucking clueless about it. They can't seem to grasp the concept that advertisements can be made relevant to the viewers. They can't seem to grasp the concept that even old content can continue to bring in revenue with modern commercials.
CBS for a long time couldn't line up the commercial blank with the commercials on their site. Really? You do advertising for a living and I'm watching the show go blank, start up again for a few seconds, then cut to commercial? Really? Advertising is what you do... really?
Then there's Hulu. We're gonna charge you extra for the same shit if you want to see it on some other device than your computer. Wait... what? Oh yeah lets replay the success of the recording industry and try and find away to charge the same person for the same content multiple times for each device he owns.
Every time they come close to what the viewers want... they're gonna fuck it up... no SOPA won't help you... when you fuck it up, I'll get my content on torrents.
Give up on selling your TV shows in DVD boxes and bet big on on demand content with customized advertisements. I would bet that more people would sit there and watch your advertisements than buy those DVDs anyway. Cost of DVD sets vs slight inconvenience of watching adds... even in non-frugal America it will work. This only offering the last 3 or 4 episodes of the most recent content? It's gotta go. Especially if you can't keep the quality of new content up with that of old content.
Note that by "default" they mean that the OpenSuse installer has a radio button with KDE selected by default. If you just keep hitting "Next" you get KDE. You can install Gnome instead with one extra well placed mouse click.
However, the odds of clicking it at random are apparently low enough that the OpenSuse team doesn't consider it a bug.:O
Ohhhhh it's funny because it implies being able to pick Gnome is a bug!!!
Or reliability hasn't been dropping. It's been low for a very long time and folks are getting smarter about returning more hardware than before.
Most people don't know their hardware is bad or even how to test it. If your computer is slow or locks up... buy a new one or wipe and reload (which can "fix" some storage failures because writing to a bad sector can result in automatic remapping to a good one). People assume "it's just Windows" or "I got a virus" long before they even think it's the hardware. By the time they figure it out... warranty is useless... and we're off to buy new hardware (Seagate or whoever gets off scotfree).
Even professionally managed workstations may take quite a while to exhibit symptoms from defects that were present leaving the factory. It may take several iterations of wipe and clone before the IT dudes suspect something. Consider also the common case where the bulk of user data is on a network share rather than the high failure local machine. The fairly large local storage is mostly unused and static. It make take some time to hit the defects.
The simple fact that if harddrive manufactures reserve ridiculous amounts of space for remapping sectors practically insures "wipe and reload" will "fix" the problem. This can fool even your geeky friend to thinking "software must have sucked." Thanks S.M.A.R.T. for covering hardware manufactures collective asses.
Wanna out smart the SMART game? Burn in the drive until Reallocated_Sector_Ct (or similar SMART variable) stops increasing at a ridiculous rate. If it stops increasing before it runs out of reserved space (SMART should fail at that point reporting the drive in bad health--a requirement for some warranty processes) then you have a good drive. As a side effect your drive may preform faster because you've managed to get all those relocations out of the way while you're not using it for something real. Too bad they can't do that at the factory.
Sigh. I was waiting for you to fix it for me. I guess I have to do everything. FIFM:
If you bothered to read just a little bit you'd know that is an optional feature. Even in the absence of ads you fail to read the article. Enough with the charades. How can ads in articles bother you if you don't read articles anyway?
It's ok... I didn't click either. I don't have a problem with your view on ads I just think it's a bit misinformed to start shouting abandon ship. If anything this option affords the user more choice. With respect to the amount of Slashdot lamenting over "walled gardens," I would think this would be a welcome change.
I don't understand why they would do this without making money.
Maybe because it sends a clear message to advertisers? Here's what I read between the lines: "Look we can either cut your balls off entirely or you can tone your boner down a bit and be more respectful than a dog humping everyone's legs."
Also:
Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising.
Shit, I didn't even have to click anything. It seems they've done some market research and are giving users what they want. No, you're right, no one does that. Carry on.
It is not like there are no alternatives to ad-block.
If you bothered to read just a little bit you'd know that is an optional feature. Even in the absence of adds you fail to read the article. Enough with the charades. How can adds in articles bother you if you don't read articles anyway?
It's ok... I didn't click either. I don't have a problem with your view on adds I just think it's a bit misinformed to start shouting abandon ship. If anything this option affords the user more choice. With respect to the amount of Slashdot lamenting over "walled gardens," I would think this would be a welcome change.
Slashdot Mirror
Exposure is not really variable 1 to 100 type thing. It's more like a 0 or 1 type thing. If you've exposed your address to one spammer you've very likely exposed yourself to all of them and they don't forget. It's probably next to impossible to not expose your email address to spammers. It's not worth the effort to conceal it.
I worry more about exposing it to half wit Internet trolls than I do exposing it to spammers.
Hyperboleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee to the rescue!!!!!
Heck maybe they can stop canceling shows because they get low viewership at 2 in the morning (Firefly).
I had a large collection of VCR tapes that I recently decided to preserve in digital format. Everything from kids cartoons, recordings of birthday parties and family gatherings, to the Stargate and Terminator movies.
My advice? Don't buy a new VCR. It will eat your tapes and break after about ten plays. Go find a used one from the 80's or early 90s at a yard sale or online. We found one and it has worked spectacularly despite its age. The new ones are designed to fail. Like many things, "they don't make 'em like that anymore."
Yes, but not like this. It's practically all there is. And bigger artists often only manage one hit per album if that. Contrast with Michael Jackson who had 7 in the top ten from a single album back in the '80s. People used to buy albums and be ecstatic because there was maybe one or two songs that kinda sucked. Today they wait to see which one song is worth paying for. It transitioned from having one or two songs that suck per album to having one song that doesn't suck per album. For some reason the RIIA thinks the problem is piracy. I say go find some new talent that can work a crowd and can preform without autotune.
I Just wish they could do all that without the multi-trillion dollar price tag. I don't hate government I just hate most of ours.
I know noooo one remembers the 80's but back then there was more than one hit per artist. EACH TAPE had several songs that charted well.
We do not have this today. We're lucky to see an artist that can chart one song well. But I'm sure it's piracy that's causing it. Why haven't there been any mega stars in the last 20 years?
Customer in the store looking at over priced product: If it cost a lot of money it's got to be worth it. And Dan and Jessica have one and are proud of it. The store guy says it's good to. I'm gonna do it! Customer after purchase: I spent a lot of money on it so I'm going to be defensive when my peers tell me it was a dumb thing to do. I will convince myself that I was justified in spending the cash. See! Others sent that much on it too... I'm not crazy! I belong to a community!
Believe it or not, an expensive price tag is a selling point. Yes it's a good quality product but the price overage is simply to turn it in to a status symbol. Like shooting a barrel of fish. They know their marketing. At least you get a decent quality product out of it (unlike some other marketing techniques).
But lets not kid ourselves. Given that so much of our stuff is made in China, it's not the fact that any particular product is made by abused workers. You probably can't buy much of anything that doesn't have some poor working conditions in some part of the chain. We just feel more guilty about it when the product happens to be a status symbol.
It's a problem with being able to run software of the user's choice. Wall it up and the problem goes away. Users are stupid therefore you make decisions for them and it becomes more secure because the primary attack vector (the user) gets cut off.
I'm not advocating a Great Wall of China but it should be a bit harder to find malware than picking some random app from the platforms officially sponsored market place.
Obviously a conspiracy to stop us from learning of the Stargate program.
It's worse than that. You don't have to have a "guy on the inside" for many sites. There's this myth that if you throw up a big firewall then all the applications behind it are protected. It doesn't take a genius to see that a single compromised machine on the "secured" side of the wall (not uncommon) effectively exposes all those "protected" (internal) applications to risk. Unless you're sure you can keep all your user's workstations free from compromise (good luck with that), you should just start with the assumption that your "protected" (internal) applications are exposed.
Arch Linux brings a lot to the table but in areas you wouldn't expect. If you just "try" Arch Linux you probably miss the good points. I guess you could say that it grows on you. Or maybe that it grows with you.
The biggest, most obvious thing that Arch does that differentiates it from other distributions is that it is a rolling release. When an upstream project releases a new version and calls it stable, it works its way into Arch. How does this differ from other distributions which can get newer packages by changing/adding package repositories?
Support for those new packages. Consider that with most distributions you have some users using the "officially supported" packages, some using the latest stable packages, and some using the latest development snapshots. I don't have any concrete numbers, but I suspect that most users like to be somewhere in the first two categories. With Arch Linux, the first two categories are combined, putting more users together running the same packages. In effect, more users are using the officially supported packages. Strength in numbers.
Bug reporting and processing is streamlined. There's no need for "me too with this OS release and the packages from over there" posts you see in other bug trackers. There really is a lot of effort that goes into just answering the question of if a newer version fixes the problem. When everyone is close to the current upstream, it becomes much easier to move the bug report upstream where it belongs. You still get the buffer zone between end users and developers (which catches duplicates, invalid, and too vague to be useful reports) but with much less delay simply because we know the bug is very likely relevant.
Arch Linux isn't for everyone, but just one choice. This is a funny one because with Arch you both give up some options and gain others. Right off the bat you make to the choice to stay current and close to the upstream. While this might not be as bad as some make it out to be, it's not for everyone. On the other side of the coin, you make many more choices on your own about what software you run. For example there's no KDE or Gnome version of Arch Linux. You pick that yourself.
This rolls right into another differentiating characteristic of Arch. For the most part Arch doesn't pick defaults for you. Those come from the upstream. This is interesting because it carries the effect of encouraging the user to really look at those defaults to see if they make sense. Again, Arch isn't for everyone. Some don't want to check configurations and won't even if they should. There's a lot of folks that avidly believe that the distribution should do that for you. I say Yes and no. Shouldn't those reasonable defaults be part of the upstream? I believe that distributions should spend a bit more time getting those reasonable defaults into the upstream project and only fall back to "protecting user from bad defaults" when they can't get things upstream.
This is largely a philosophy that Arch holds to. If you don't like the vanilla upstream, try to get your changes into the upstream instead of dragging around a custom patch set for all eternity. So, just the user base all using recent and mostly vanilla packages is one of the key differentiating characteristics of Arch Linux.
Beyond that there's a lot of social interaction (community) which is more or less unique in to the Arch User Repository (AUR). Unlike package repositories from other distributions which might be maintained by a small group, the AUR is maintained by the larger user base. Better than just that, it's ridiculously easy as a user to interact with the person behind something found on AUR. And that's not something that can be said with a lot of other "community ran" repositories for other distributions. When you go to grab a package off of the AUR you can't miss the built-in forum thread for that package. It's designed to be social. Again, not for everyone. But for those it is for... it's very for.
For a long time now the 2nd amendment only applies to protecting one's home from trespassers who would do harm.
The second amendment was useless for overthrowing the government the moment military weapons were better than what you could legally own. Just go ahead and try to stockpile enough anything to compete with the military. You will be put down.
TV will never be smart because it's held back by the stupid kids in the class.
I'm talking about the broadcast/cable networks and companies like Hulu.
Start with the fact that the content providers don't have a flipp'n clue what people want (a.k.a like the Music industry--wait for it TV show producers will blame technology soon enough). I'd rather watch TV shows from previous decades than the bulk of crap on the air now. I recently watched a TV series from the 60s. That's a heck of a lot of mileage for a show that's been off the air for over half a century. I watched it without advertisements because I got it off of torrent. I would have been just as happy watching it off of Hulu or one of the network sites WITH ADVERTISEMENTS. But the content, despite the technology being ridiculously available, isn't available to watch today. Ok maybe if I paid for those hundreds of cable channels and tuned in at 3AM... I could find it.
It amazes me that TV networks who have always made their money by advertising, but are so fucking clueless about it. They can't seem to grasp the concept that advertisements can be made relevant to the viewers. They can't seem to grasp the concept that even old content can continue to bring in revenue with modern commercials.
CBS for a long time couldn't line up the commercial blank with the commercials on their site. Really? You do advertising for a living and I'm watching the show go blank, start up again for a few seconds, then cut to commercial? Really? Advertising is what you do... really?
Then there's Hulu. We're gonna charge you extra for the same shit if you want to see it on some other device than your computer. Wait... what? Oh yeah lets replay the success of the recording industry and try and find away to charge the same person for the same content multiple times for each device he owns.
Every time they come close to what the viewers want... they're gonna fuck it up... no SOPA won't help you... when you fuck it up, I'll get my content on torrents.
Give up on selling your TV shows in DVD boxes and bet big on on demand content with customized advertisements. I would bet that more people would sit there and watch your advertisements than buy those DVDs anyway. Cost of DVD sets vs slight inconvenience of watching adds... even in non-frugal America it will work. This only offering the last 3 or 4 episodes of the most recent content? It's gotta go. Especially if you can't keep the quality of new content up with that of old content.
It didn't happen in Fedora 16 as once planned but they're apparently going to make a go of it in Fedora 17: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Btrfs-and-new-file-system-structure-agreed-for-Fedora-17-1389851.html
Tick tick tick...
You must be new here.
Either there's no diversity, like you say, and all browsers are alike
- or -
there's enough diversity for you to go on at length about how terrible every browser is in comparison to Chrome.
Pick one. The two are mutually exclusive. No diversity means Chrome sucks just as bad as everything else.
I'd explain the part you don't get but I'm afraid that leads to infinite recursion.
Note that by "default" they mean that the OpenSuse installer has a radio button with KDE selected by default. If you just keep hitting "Next" you get KDE. You can install Gnome instead with one extra well placed mouse click.
However, the odds of clicking it at random are apparently low enough that the OpenSuse team doesn't consider it a bug. :O
Ohhhhh it's funny because it implies being able to pick Gnome is a bug!!!
and the reason I have so much trouble returning hardware that actually is defective.
Or reliability hasn't been dropping. It's been low for a very long time and folks are getting smarter about returning more hardware than before.
Most people don't know their hardware is bad or even how to test it. If your computer is slow or locks up... buy a new one or wipe and reload (which can "fix" some storage failures because writing to a bad sector can result in automatic remapping to a good one). People assume "it's just Windows" or "I got a virus" long before they even think it's the hardware. By the time they figure it out... warranty is useless... and we're off to buy new hardware (Seagate or whoever gets off scotfree).
Even professionally managed workstations may take quite a while to exhibit symptoms from defects that were present leaving the factory. It may take several iterations of wipe and clone before the IT dudes suspect something. Consider also the common case where the bulk of user data is on a network share rather than the high failure local machine. The fairly large local storage is mostly unused and static. It make take some time to hit the defects.
The simple fact that if harddrive manufactures reserve ridiculous amounts of space for remapping sectors practically insures "wipe and reload" will "fix" the problem. This can fool even your geeky friend to thinking "software must have sucked." Thanks S.M.A.R.T. for covering hardware manufactures collective asses.
Wanna out smart the SMART game? Burn in the drive until Reallocated_Sector_Ct (or similar SMART variable) stops increasing at a ridiculous rate. If it stops increasing before it runs out of reserved space (SMART should fail at that point reporting the drive in bad health--a requirement for some warranty processes) then you have a good drive. As a side effect your drive may preform faster because you've managed to get all those relocations out of the way while you're not using it for something real. Too bad they can't do that at the factory.
Why be evil if you can get someone else to do it.
Sigh. I was waiting for you to fix it for me. I guess I have to do everything. FIFM:
Maybe because it sends a clear message to advertisers? Here's what I read between the lines: "Look we can either cut your balls off entirely or you can tone your boner down a bit and be more respectful than a dog humping everyone's legs."
Also:
Shit, I didn't even have to click anything. It seems they've done some market research and are giving users what they want. No, you're right, no one does that. Carry on.
If you bothered to read just a little bit you'd know that is an optional feature. Even in the absence of adds you fail to read the article. Enough with the charades. How can adds in articles bother you if you don't read articles anyway?
It's ok... I didn't click either. I don't have a problem with your view on adds I just think it's a bit misinformed to start shouting abandon ship. If anything this option affords the user more choice. With respect to the amount of Slashdot lamenting over "walled gardens," I would think this would be a welcome change.