Just FYI, they didn't need the seat belts to put cameras everywhere. They just wanted to put cameras everywhere and in same places they weren't all that ashamed. They were like, we're putting cameras, deal with it.
Red light cameras also don't need seat belt laws. Human cops can only pull over so many folks per day, for cities wanting to create a new stream of revenue, they just pop these guys up and let it print the money for them.
So while all three of those things exist, none of them relate to the other as opposed to my snide comment there which was that we need cameras inside of cars to make sure people are putting their seat belt on.
Non-Urgent is also known as elective surgery. These are surgeries where a date and time can be set that best meets the doctor's and patient's schedule. There's no need to rush for the surgery because it, at the present time, poses no significant immediate risk to life. This can be things like cataract surgery, mastectomies, vasectomies, donation of a kidney, and so on. None of these surgeries represent an immediate risk to life.
In contrast there are two other groups. Urgent surgery that must be performed within 24-48 hours, though that standard may vary based on local laws. There is also emergency surgery, where surgery must be performed with no delay.
Seriously? If I trip and tear some ligaments in my knee, what does smoking have to do with it? What does obesity have to do with it? I pay into the healthcare system, fix my damn knee.
If you are obese, fat tissue in the area can enter into the bloodstream causing an embolism which can cause death. The more obese, the higher the risk of embolisms. That's not to say that the surgery won't be performed, it is that careful consideration will need to take place first before proceeding. If your trip poses a serious and immediate risk to your life, then doctor's are going to get to work right away. However, if your trip basically can be managed and poses no significant threat then doctors for obese patients are going to tread carefully before getting to work.
No one is saying that you'll get no treatment. What they are saying is that patients like yourself can't scream, hoot, and hollar if your lifestyle poses a risk to doctors helping you. If you smoke and/or obese you increase the complexity of opening you up. There other things that do that too, like being on blood thinners and so on, but smoking and obesity are things that to *some* degree people can control. Doctor's don't like playing with high risk non-urgent cases because that's how one, you get people killed that don't need to die and two, you open yourself up for a lawsuit. My goodness people are acting like they've never heard this stuff before? This kind of stuff is the kind of stuff they taught everyone in like 9th grade health class.
I don't think this falls into slippery slope territory. Smoking and obesity aren't things that increase risks in your surgery by something small value, they increase it by large values. Acting like this is some slope that leads us to "death panels", is much like saying, "The Federal government mandates seatbelts, next thing you know they'll be installing cameras in your car and watching you every minute you're in your car." or my personal favorite, "You let your barber cut your hair, next thing you know they'll be lopping off your limbs."
It might be just me, but I think we're really reaching here thinking that this is a gateway to death panels in any country.
CPU cycles is one commodity. People tend to use the same password for multiple sites, so finding the one social network that sends it unencrypted is paydirt for someone who will take it and attempt it on other sites.
In other words, net neutrality is government regulation to try to fix a problem created by government regulation.
See here's the thing. You are grouping all government into one big pile to make an argument and believe or not, I know this might come as a shock, local government is distinctly different than federal government. I know, surprising... Net neutrality is a federal guideline for how ISPs must conduct their business. Now how they go about that when it gets down to the local level, that's up to local governments to figure out. But let's be real here. The Federal government isn't fixing a problem they've made, they are outlining a minimum standard for ISPs at a broad level. The Federal government isn't even getting into the muck of trying to clean up the monopolies that small government has made.
It's that they assume ISPs are a competitive market
No, I assume that my local government is going to act as corrupt as they possibly can while screaming, we've got to save the babies from the evil abortion clinics to ensure that they get voted in next go-around. Because dumb fuck citizens basically think of politics as, "Good Internet" or "Saving children from evil doctors." I would hope, that a different level of government not so entrenched in backwoods dumb fuckery will step in and at the very least give some sort of guide line with some teeth to prevent my dumb fuck local officials from fucking up everything else in the world that's on the Internet. That shouldn't be a monumental task, but apparently everyone wants to make this out like it's some lesson in economics. It isn't. It basically boils down to this. Small town mayors are always going to go with whatever deal gets them enough money to put up another stop light, or lock up another meth head, because that shit looks good in the papers. If Comcast is offering Mr. Dumb fuck, my mother and sister are the exact same person, mayor (good chance that the mayor I've got fits this bill nicely) $10 million to be the only ISP in town, guess who's getting a new PD car complete with meth-head seeking missiles? So there's no illusion that our local governments suck massive donkey dick here and take money where they can get it. That ISPs take full advantage of that, isn't surprising. Net neutrality at the very least puts some clamps on that. It doesn't get rid of Incest born mayors who will setup a monopoly at the first paycheck, but it does prevent those ISPs from getting too crazy with their extortion. So until the Federal Government says, well we're not going to allow mayors or governors to exist anymore, or when the public actually can understand that you can care about two topics at the same time, I'll take ISPs having to uphold a decent level of fairness.
I don't know where you live buddy where this is just an economic fix, but apparently it isn't here in the south US where every politician will stomp a kitten to death on public access TV if it means they'll get another $5/mo pouring into their school lunch program. Shit I wish the problem was just "break up the monopolies."
This is the thing that should get people moving and yet barely incites a reaction. The Internet is only a generalized method because of net neutrality. If that is gone, the Internet is no better than having cable TV or Sat TV, it just becomes a standard piece of hardware like a TV, but the TV itself is useless without content. The Internet works because content is equalized and it is equalized because it is all served the same way at the same rate without regard of the origin. I can't understand why American's are not marching with tiki torches in hand outside the FCC building, it literally boggles my mind.
I'm going to first say I applaud your comment, there's nothing in it that I disagree with. So what follows might sound like I'm being condescending to your comment, but I in full lock, stock, and barrel agree with what you've got there.
lets not pretend its some sort of death sentence for Homo Sapiens
Well, you are right. All of humanity is not likely to die in the event of ongoing global warming. However, I think it is fairly accurate to say that a LOT will die. First world nations will struggle maybe the poorest of those countries die, everyone else I think ranges from descent into utter chaos, war, and outright barbarism (so not unlike Syria right now) to complete desertion of some segment of land that used to be called a nation (Sort of like what the Maldives have planned).
And now add modern technology
Right, but as you might have noticed, not every place where there are humans is there technology and something tells me, push come to shove, first world nations will be more than happy to see the majority of the African continent die off, to name one massive victim of global environmental change. But that's just the cynic in me, who knows, our altruistic nature may be embolden by disaster? But something tells me that when a lot of countries start fighting over lack of food (because hunger is a real strong driving factor for war), the countries that have food but of questionable supply will more than likely do nothing unless the fight starts bleeding across their border.
It would be a painful transition given the rapid onset of the changes
I think you are underselling that. While we're really clever, we're not at the point where we can in wholesale genetically modify everything we eat to sustain the environmental changes that are happening. Now one day in the future the only things left alive may be the things we've GMO'ed to the new world (since evolution can't keep up with us) and the things that have figured a way to survive, and perhaps our bodies will change as well to be able to call those things that have changed nourishment, but dang if it ain't going to be a lot of painful in the interim. Oh as an aside, I really hope future humans decide that cats are important enough to GMO so that they can live in the increased heat and have reduced food requirements (since food will be human first, things that we can use as food second, more than likely no third), would be a shame to see them all go.
quite survivable as an adaptable intelligent species that is not locked into a particular environment niche
And I know I sound like a fear monger, but I like to think of it as one of those harsh truths that we need to talk about. That we can survive begs the question of do we want to survive like that? Should we survive like that? Wouldn't we rather survive in a manner that is a whole lot less shitty? I'm just saying, because honestly I'll be good and dead by the time this shit storm of a hurricane we're making comes full force onto land, so my opinion of what future Homo Sapiens might or might not, should or should not, will or will not want is really pointless. But I figure that they'd most likely want something that is a lot less difficult to live in than what we had, rather than more difficult. But that's just me.
Now truth be told, we really don't know how "painful" this is going to be, but I think even those trying to keep the middle ground and be level headed about this can agree, no one is going to enjoy what is about to happen.
I wonder if stuff like this could be mitigated by BLU having the kernel drivers available, if not open-sourced, so people could make custom ROMs.
Not everything that makes up all the needed bits for these devices have open sourced drivers. That's no excuses for at least releasing the open parts. However, this is actually a larger existential problem, so much so, that the maintainer of Android's Open Source Project AOSP basically quit his job and basically asked what's the f***ing point if an OS doesn't do anything on modern hardware. The Nexus 4 and 7 devices made by Google included lots of hardware that just was never going to be able to have drivers open sourced. Since then, the problem has only gotten worse, yes even the beloved Raspberry Pi has binary drivers and the people who make the Pi are not abashed by this point because, completely open sourced has never been one of their goals. True the OS is open since it is Linux, but what good is it when only the Kernel and a few support libraries are all that are open source? Or as the former AOSP maintainer put it, "There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support"
But I digress, because I'm not getting to the point here. BLU contracted out to a third party to maintain their firmware, because maintaining an image is a lot of work. That third party was Adups Technology and they themselves had a set of ad networks that they use to serve up ads, much like how any other phone serves up Google ads. At anyrate, Adups' network of ads networks had some nodes that were serving up malware embedded into the ad. When Adups' software loaded the ad it loaded up the infection.
This is the thing about ads in apps. Those ads have to come from somewhere and you are putting a lot of trust in the person who's delivering those ads that those ads are trojans. Now you as a firmware company might also have your own ad agency (I know weird combination) as well, so basically people come to you and you design and deliver the ad. But if that's not you (more likely situation), then someone else designs the ad and sends it to the delivery network, the delivery network either sends it directly to the device or sends it on upstream to someone who aggregates these things to be sent out to the device. etc, etc, etc... Fun stuff.
Open sourcing things might help a bit, but not really. But honestly, piecemeal keeping up with licence is it's own job for really large projects. Some places, especially Chinese places, don't really care and grab whatever kernel version they are using from kernel.org and put that up on their website for GPL compliance. Same thing for the other bits. After that bit of hassle is done, it's basically a binary blob that's closed off. It's the fun part of cutting corners that goes on in some of the cut-throat mobile market.
That way, there would be some faith that the phones would have been shipped clean and decently secure.
Even if the phone shipped clean, if the ad network that you trust delivers the malware behind your back because the ad network didn't catch it, then you're hosed that way. Clean phone or not. To summarize here.
TL;DR - This infection was delivered via the ad network, so open source or not, you would have been hosed. However, open sourcing a device is a lot easier said than done as a lot of hardware is impossible (well, not impossible but many companies that make the ICs are very, very unwilling so you might as well say impossible) to open source. Additionally, even if you just gave out the parts that are open, that's an insanely complex task of putting it together that a lot of cut-throat companies won't go through.
It's not a problem until it happens to you or someone close to you.
You can literally say that about everything. I could get into my car tomorrow and a semi pulling gasoline could fall off an overpass bridge onto the Interstate as I travel under it. However, I'm not going to worrying about that, until it actually happens. Say diff with self-driving cars, except it'll happen a whole lot less because we have things that are distracted by phones, radio stations, hamburgers their trying to eat, phone calls they're trying to make, or hot women in another car they're trying to watch among a list of other reasons humans have killed other humans with two tons of 45 to 70 MPH hunks of iron.
certify to the point that you can guarantee people's lives
If that's the goal, you'll never reach it. AI isn't aiming for perfection, it's aiming for better than human. It's already there easily. People will die in self-driving cars, people will get ran over by self-driving cars.
But there will be fewer people who die in self-driving cars, there will be fewer people who get ran over by self-driving cars. Humans in aggregate suck at driving, we killing a ton of other humans at insane rates per minute around the world. There is literally zero ways where AI will be worse at this than we humans already are.
It was worse back then, but it depends on how you define worse. The air had way more soot back then because humanity was very inefficient at burning fuels back then. When we got better at burning it, we released a lot more sulphur which in turned cause more acid rain. We've gotten better at the sulphur part, which in turn means our more pressing issue now is the CO2 content.
So quick recap. Soot is worse because it is a massive irritant. Sulphur is worse because it turns rain into acid. CO2 is worse because it's warming the planet. We're finding all kinds of fun new things out about burning fossil fuels.
Yes, systemd homogenizes Linux... Down to the level of utter, absolutely unstable crap like Windows.
Compared to the situation of Linux, with not "half a dozen BSD", but litterally HUNDREDS of distributions, I am not sure you are being serious...
Well now I'm confused because you're talking in circles. Additionally, if you're sitting there saying there's only three BSD but hundreds of Linux distros then you might as well toss in the towel on your argument. Only three BSDs, pfft. Okay, so you're willing to say Dragonfly BSD is just FreeBSD, but that same thinking doesn't hold water with something like CentOS is just RedHat? If you seriously think there's 100s of distros, I'll give you that, but you're going to have to abandon your idea of only three BSDs. Otherwise, you're just skirting facts to wax your ego.
Hilarious. Try getting actual, useful support from Red Hat and SuSE, to name just two of the biggest... Go on, I'll be waiting right here.
I've never had a problem with RedHat support. Of course, I don't call them and act like an asshat.
The level of incompetence in these companies is simply astounding.
Yes, which is why they're making money. Again, please refer to my "Slashdot users like to use dated examples that aren't in line with reality" point that I made in my previous post. You might as well convince me that Java is slow as dirt since v1.2 was so horrible and obviously no one can improve software. Or something like JavaScript couldn't possibly be used for serious software development. Or webapps suck compared to full desktop applications.
I could go on refuting your ridiculous arguments again and again
Wow, way to not act like the very stereotype I was referring to. I mean what with the whole inflated ego, I'm so much smarter than you I don't have time to even type things on a keyboard that's how beneath me your are... The, I know so much about AWS, let me demonstrate what words you are using incorrectly. I mean do you tell people who call it toilet paper, "NO!! IT IS CALLED TOILET TISSUE!!!"? You must be a peach to work with and I know, because I've worked with similar folks like yourself that spray themselves daily with eau de superiority. Just something about the IT field draws the folks with superiority complexes for some reason.
Actually, no, systemd IS the reason serious system administrators and quite a few devops are leaving Linux behind.
Well I'm guessing that number of people leaving Linux includes you and maybe a few of your buddies, wunderbar. So now that we've got that out of the way,
care to back that up at all with actual numbers? Are we just going to go ahead and assume your big brain knows better? It's not a chore to see that Linux adoption has pretty much been the same as it has been the last five or so years, that the number of jobs that ask for Linux skillset hasn't changed, that pretty much this massive decline that you speak of, it just isn't happening. Oh here's something for you, but by all means, feel free to put whatever you've got here (I mean only if the almighty has time to mingle with us simpletons of course) and don't let me try to convince you of anything. I'm so sure your opinion is way more accurate than market analysis, because, well you know.
Your level of ignorance is frankly stunning.
Sticks and stones buddy. However, I find your breed fun at a distance. Something about the blatant display of hyper-amped egos and the sheer level of tunnel vision is amazing. It is stunning really. Just one question, when you wake up are you able to see anything outside of the three degrees of your field of vision that's
No, Bill Joy was the heart of BSD, when he moved on to Sun, BSD was done. No one could fire up the folks like Joy, no one had the passion like Joy. When he left, it was like walking into a bakery with the oven off and the door left open to the winter outside. Linus sticking so strongly with the project he started and guiding it the way he did in the early days is what lead to Linux rocketing upward. People like to cite how exciting it was or whatever, but it was the leadership between the two projects that made the difference. All the other stuff is just a by-product IMHO.
It's getting to the point where Linux really doesn't offer any substantial benefits over the *BSDs. In many ways the *BSDs offer significant advantages over Linux.
Welp I know this will get modded down, but hell why not play devil's advocate here? Vendor support. You have actual companies that will stand behind and certify software and hardware for Linux. Not so much for BSDs. Also, you kind of point out the problem with BSD. This BSD is good for this, this BSD is good for that. Not many businesses have the time to sit there and evaluate ten different BSDs to figure out which one provides the most bang for buck, where as much as everyone hates it, systemd homogenizes Linux. A single known Linux versus a half dozen BSDs where commercial support is iffy at best, guess which one is going to win in the mind of the non-technical person who write the check that will pay for the installation.
The *BSDs are becoming the go-to operating system for a wide range of computing needs, from servers to workstations to embedded systems.
I don't doubt that BSDs are getting deployed, but you are over stating the figure a bit. Newer folks in the industry are learning Linux and while the old hats like the way BSD works and feels, the newer folks don't really give a stink. Most of them will get ten seconds to have 100 servers up and running, ready for whatever software the PHB has selected. With BSD you'll be lucky to get past configuring disks in that ten seconds. With Linux you'll have an army of AWS boxes at your command ready to go before your first cup of coffee is poured.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here dissing the BSD folks, but there's a serious need for folks to look past systemd as the sole reason everyone and their dog is leaving Linux. That's not happening and people yelling this argument sound a lot like how people used to junk on Java for how poorly 1.2 ran all the way up to where Java EE and Spring is pretty much everywhere. It's seriously getting old and Linux's popularity hasn't gone anywhere and doesn't look like it is going anywhere anytime soon.
All the different BSDs are great and they have their place. However, I hear arguments about systemd and the majority of them are dated as hell, just like when Java 6 was out and people would rag on it like everyone was still using Java 1.2. So all the different BSDs, they're doing great, I mean look at Yahoo, they're still running all their stuff on BSD. There's a good amount of IoT that is running some version of BSD. I'm not saying BSD isn't some hot stuff right now. What I am saying is that Linux is way more known and a lot of folks know it as the go-to-solution, systemd and all. Additionally, systemd, while contentious, has not been the death knell for Linux that everyone would like to think. It has been an evolution, to try and put the best spin on the systemd situation, but there's actual vendors with money on the line who have a vested interest in seeing systemd become stable. For the most part, it has become a stable system. That's not to say everything is rosy now, but systems with systemd on the server and a person well versed in systemd are good enough for actual production systems, Amazon among others have shown that very clearly.
especially now that nearly all Linux distros have started using systemd which has caused stability and reliability problems for lots of users.
At some point Slashdot users need to break the stereotype that we all beat a dead horse into jell-o. One sided shit like this and everyone who chimes in with "MOD UP!" are all echoing a view that is years old, and yes, I'm pretty sure Slashdot will be first to amp to front page any failure of systemd, because that's what the mob likes, because Slashdotter just can't stop kicking the horse. But truth be told, every flipping OS on the planet has bugs and some of them are pretty damn serious and require fixes, that's how software works. But c
What happened was, we'd already been using it for years so it sounded really stupid and it was only ever a joke where people laughed at anybody who had repeated the phrase.
Finally, the correct answer on Slashdot. The year of Linux was never a real thing and that's the entire point. Windows is the main one you see because pretty much everyone has built a toolset around it. There's literally zero need to toss your entire tool box away for just the sake of tossing it. People who toss Windows for Linux or Mac do it for pragmatic reasons (tool that is there and not found anywhere else) or ideological reasons (I heart libre/member of the cult of Steve). But honestly, if Windows gets you through the day, DO NOT CHANGE. Me. I was too broke to purchase Win95 and I thought the start button was a horrible idea (my stance on that has changed since then), so I went to Wal-Mart bought a giant stack of floppies and went to the city library, which had a local mirror of things on the Kent State FTP site, to download Slackware, never looked back.
There's always this group of folks who get too religious about Linux and feel like, that if they only spread the gospel and save just one person from Windows, then whatever the means to get that, shouldn't be overlooked. It's those folks who the original "year of Linux" was invented for. It's also those folks who get so polar about new things coming to Linux. systemd is a good example of that. Depending on who you are, it either is killing Linux or is the great salvation. Third option is, you just don't care, which IMHO is the correct option. The Linux community at large has, to me at least, been about trying stuff and seeing what sticks, systemd is just the latest and I'm pretty sure in ten, twenty years, we'll be moving on to some even newer/most betterer init system.
I tell anyone who gets into Linux, just buckle up and enjoy the ride. Try not to take it too serious and always be ready for the next thing to come around the corner. Because, even if Linux isn't top dog and never will be, it most definitely gets the other two dogs in the ring talking, taking notes, and wondering if that's something they want to do with their system. It's mixed parts bitter and fun and I've always gotten a smile being with some of the most harshest and friendliest folks on a project that never ends.
Maybe, my read of it is this. "We police our real people, you need to police your virtual people." Which I find interesting because the EU is basically saying that they don't want to actually pay for virtual policing and would rather these companies do it voluntarily or they'll deputize them by law. I don't think it is so much a free speech attack as it is the EU trying to sluff off the responsibility of doing the thing that a government or government like organization is supposed to do.
Call me crazy, but I get a real feel that governments in first world nations are getting really lazy about the part of the contract their supposed to uphold. Apple unlock this phone, Yahoo give me all your emails, Verizon record everything for us. Stop trying to third party responsibility. You want the Internet policed, you want to define hate speech and "protect" folks from it. Well get off your collective lazy asses and go do that thing. Stop going after the bar owner just because The Hell's Angels are stopping in his place. It easy to counter this kind of stuff when the person doing it answers to the public. Codify something and make it a private business' problem and suddenly the public can't do squat about it until enough folks get into government/government like entity to vote it away.
Again, that's my read on this, so I could be way out in left field here.
There's a whole lot of subjective "me" in that comment but very little objective "fact". Look if Linux doesn't work for you, okay. You found something else to use? Great! I think we've all moved past the idea that there will ever be a year of the Linux Desktop.
They seem to me like 20-something bearded hipsters trying to Python-script their way to Linux desktop glory.
Really?! These people look like 20-something hipsters? Have you ever worked in a programming job? Because these folks look exactly like the last three groups of folks I've worked with which is typically a pretty diverse mix of folks.
I give up. I declare the Linux desktop fragmentation thoroughly fatal.
Well I'm sure we're all glad that you've finally declared that. We have all been waiting with bated breath for you to go one way or the other. We can all now rest easy knowing for sure which way you lean on the matter.
Using as many acronyms as possible all starting with/having a J is also a time-honored tradition. What with EJB, JAAS, JAX-WS, JAX-RS, JSP, JSF, JTA, JPA, JMS, JCA, and on and on and on the list goes.
Yeah it is kind of like that. You do have to keep your wits about you with sudden lane departures. So like say the car indicates that it's following the car in front of you, it does this with a little blue car icon. If that car does the sudden swerve into the right or left lane to avoid a completely stopped car, you have to jump in, basically tap on the brake. If you set the car distance to a good length, like 2 or 3, you absolutely have plenty of time to react. While I was driving we hit a construction zone and I just went full manual then, so no word on how it would handle that. The time I got to drive I didn't take my eyes off traffic and what the car was doing, but it was nice not having to manage the constant gas, brake, gas, brake motions.
I'll add this, that in no way was I ever left the impression that I could brake out my Kindle and just start reading while in traffic. You do need to babysit the car. I get that a lot of people will say, "What's the point then?" But it does help in its own little way. You get to think less about what your speed is and what you need to input on the accelerator to obtain that speed, or how much you need to brake to slow down to the person in front of you. There might be more to all of it, but again I have only driven one, once, and it wasn't an incredibly long distance, though it was like forty minutes of stop and go.
My chief complaint about Safari has been the lack to specify domains that are allowed to display popups. While I get that popups are bad, some sites still persist in their usage and some of those sites I'd like to allow without having to resort to scripts and JSON. Until then I'll continue to happily use Firefox.
Also... Taking cover for admitting to being a Firefox user. Really Slashdot, I can understand some of the hate.
Friend's car on a trip to a conference I got to actually try one of these out, these systems are a godsend in stop and go traffic. Did not test the thing on the open road.
We will be keeping those fossil fueled power generators around for a long time yet
There's usually an eye roll that goes along with these kinds of pedantic statements, because people who actually understand how things work (and I am not saying you are not one of them, you more than likely are just really simplifying the whole topic, and I understand and respect that) know we're not bringing fossil fuels to 0% anytime soon. The simplicity of your comment might as well have been, "ending usage of fossil fuels won't end hurricanes." That statement isn't incorrect, but it is a really simplified response full of snark to a really general way of thinking of a problem we now face. Which I get, it's bad for people to blame global warming for hurricanes that are happening now because it is not a 100% accurate way of talking about global warming. But I digress before we go down that rabbit hole any further.
Now one day, and that day is long after everyone here reading this comment is dead, we will have ended the usage of fossil fuels for the majority of industrial and metro power generating. It will have more to do with the increasing difficulty of extracting fossil fuels and less to do with some holy war of clean vs dirty power. That doesn't mean the latter will have nothing to do with it, just in case you get the wrong idea here. I'm not standing on a economically reasonable only platform, its a light mixture of the two ideas I just stated, plus a whole lot of global politics mixed in there that I'm going to not be bringing up. But all of that I just stated plus a bit more ultimately will be guiding the world as to what we move to next. But to keep it simple, as it stands, coal is the first causality of this ever increasing difficulty of "access to." Will we ever use 0% coal? More than likely not, but as time goes on we will be less inclined to burn it for lighting someone's light bulb or cooking their Hot Pocket, we will all think that's just stupid considering it has a way better use in something like steel production. That's not today, but I would wager that it is sooner rather than later. So when I say causality, I don't mean death of coal absolute. I and many others mean it in these terms of being more conservative with the resource than we previously have been.
Eventually, all fossil fuels will come to this point. It will seem really silly for us to use natural gas to heat someone's water, or for us to use oil to lubricate someone's car when both of those will be better used for heating a hospital or lubricating a wind farm or whatever. It's about the same state of mind that Slashdot seems to get into when we think about using Helium in balloons. It is a really silly usage of a resource that is limited that can be better used elsewhere. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not attributing to humanity the notion of always picking the "better" for whatever terms that might mean, method of using a resource. However, the economics of things being an awfully powerful force for changing people's minds.
So that said, I just want to touch real lightly on coal for a second, since it is the first one on the chopping block that we rely on for a majority of our current power production. Again, by chopping block, I mean that in terms of having to rethink its usage, not it's absolute demise. About 53% of the coal that we know about is still left for us to extract and is slightly economical to pull out of the ground. The remaining 47% of the coal that we do know about is just not feasible to extract economically and maybe that will change with some sort of technological leap. Even still, the coal we do know about is but only 30% of all the coal that is thought to exist on the planet. So that 53% roughly represents about ~15% of all the coal we think is out there. At some point as we get close to the bottom of that 53%, with out any clear change to getting at that 47%, we're all going to really be rethinking if we should be burning the stuff for powering homes ver
That's a nice, far-away target date that lets people feel good about themselves
Maybe
without actually having to do anything
Oh do not confuse good vibes with actual industry. The lithium market is really getting competitive and China stands to earn a lot in the export of raw materials. China pretty much is in some ratio promoting clean cars and the fact they want to make a lot of money on this resource that they sit on. If you're cynical, I guess you could call that ratio as 10/90 or if you are optimistic you could say it is 50/50, but one cannot just say clean cars without also saying China pumping up a new industry and hoping to cash in.
Plus there's plenty of time to extend the deadline when it eventually approaches
True, but investors don't like to wait. Look at ETF and it's prices over the last year. It's gone from ~$20 to ~$38 with an increase in investment of about $41 million this year alone. They've very much indicated that come 2025~2030 they intend to see some of that initial investment pay off. Now will that amount to anything? No, investors aren't gods and they can't make a government that actively refuses to switch, switch. But they are busy little bees at times.
Either way, it is still a monumental task to do what these governments say they want to do. However, thinking that there's no pressure for them to do that is folly at best.
Well there in lies the problem. The law as it does not say, "If here illegally, deport immediately." There's a basic outline about how one goes about legally immigrating here from another country. However, there's exceptions to that for humanitarian reasons, political prosecution, temporary work visas, people of strategic value, education purposes, and on and on and on and on and on and on. There's also laws that bar some types of folks from entering all together.
In addition to all of these exceptions, most of the laws either create a department under the President or leave to the Executive branch's guidance how to enforce that exception, ban, correction to law, etc.
DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers
Well if you feel that way then you should have a heart to heart with your member of Congress for granting that power to the President to read the law as they see fit. FYI, Congress has a nasty habit of passing incredibly vague laws and then leaving it to the President to actually bring the details. This is actually a sort of on purpose thing because it basically shifts blame for bad laws to the President rather the members that created the law. So if you are outraged about all of this, and I'm not one to say your outrage is misplaced, you should at the very least aim your outrage at the correct branch. This is equally true when you hear things like "Judge's writing laws from the bench". Again, this is mostly cited in cases where Congress wrote an incredibly vague law and a judge has to sort out what the meaning of the law is. Again, same reason, if things go sideways, it is easy for Congress to shift blame to the person clarifying it. It's easy to to write a law and then later go "That's not what we meant!!!" It is more politically risky to write a law that spells everything out.
with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch
That's not what happened. The Executive branch chose a course of action to implement a series of laws that Congress has passed over the last sixty years. Congress did not agree to that specific implementation but refuses to give more information about what they feel is the better way because it might cost them votes. You can think of it like this. On my way to work there's a posted speed limit. However, rarely is that enforced during rush hour unless the person in question is recklessly speeding. I'm not part of highway patrol so I cannot voice for "why" this happens, but I've seen cops sit and watch traffic uniformly moving five to seven MPH over the limit with not even a hint that anything will be done. The law is anyone speeding is breaking the law, but the implementation is vastly different considering circumstances. I won't pretend to know what factors play into that decision making.
Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.
You are quite correct on sustainable end of that statement, but incorrect in that the President isn't choosing laws to enforce or not enforce, but again I'll refer you to your closest Congressional Member to take that up with. The President is enforcing all laws, it is just how the President reads those laws and what they mean to his/her administration. There's no selection process, again, the 70 MPH limit could be read as explicitly nothing over 70 MPH or read as prevent reckless driving, when cops sit on the side and watch rush hour pass by moving at faster than that 70 MPH, I can only assume that they are taking the latter read on that, but I'm not a cop, so I could not say for sure. I digress however. Immigration policy is a very polarizing topic and members are sure to lose votes if they take a hard stance on either side. Thus, the method has been to take no firm stance and allow the current administration to deal with the matter. Now the cu
Are you talking about the hardware or the publishing? If the hardware, that's a iffy position unless you are mass maker of radios. While it is cute to compare something like Pandora or whatever to FM Radio, it would be more accurate to compare to HD Radio which has way more complicated and expensive circuits to implement. Many of those circuits are also under patents for HD Radio, so to build a radio it would be prudent to include licensing costs. If we're talking the publishing, the Internet is vastly cheaper to make an MP3 and share on the Internet versus trying to broadcast via FM.
doesn't count against their bandwidth cap
No argument here
no conceivable way to build in copy protection
Again, that's if we're talking FM radio. If we're talking HD radio then it's a different story.
Now I can only speak on my own behalf, but the biggest reason I don't listen to radio is that it is mostly ads. About 20 minutes of music and about 40 minutes of ads. And in the time that they do broadcast content, it's the same eleven songs that they've played for the last three months. This isn't like OTA HDTV, there's ads, yes, but in terms of absolute minutes of content vs absolute minutes of ads, there's no contest. The TV broadcasts vastly less ads than radio. So I actually value OTA HDTV simply because the content isn't drowned out by ads. I also like some of the shows that come on TV so that adds to the value. Additionally, TV isn't showing the same episode of CSI every other hour, so that really amps the value up.
Radio, at least for myself, is a product that has zero value because of decisions made by the broadcaster. The cost of the content is irrelevant here because personally I see zero value in the content. So the argument that it's cheaper and costs me less in bandwidth have no meaning. Zero cost for content that has zero value is just a wash. Radio's problems are a product of bad management, not one of cost to end consumer.
That's just my two cents and I'm a firm Gen X here. I can't really blame Millennials or Gen Z for not listening to radio. It literally is the Applebee's Effect going on here.
Slashdot Mirror
Just FYI, they didn't need the seat belts to put cameras everywhere. They just wanted to put cameras everywhere and in same places they weren't all that ashamed. They were like, we're putting cameras, deal with it.
Red light cameras also don't need seat belt laws. Human cops can only pull over so many folks per day, for cities wanting to create a new stream of revenue, they just pop these guys up and let it print the money for them.
So while all three of those things exist, none of them relate to the other as opposed to my snide comment there which was that we need cameras inside of cars to make sure people are putting their seat belt on.
What is "non-urgent surgery," anyway?
Non-Urgent is also known as elective surgery. These are surgeries where a date and time can be set that best meets the doctor's and patient's schedule. There's no need to rush for the surgery because it, at the present time, poses no significant immediate risk to life. This can be things like cataract surgery, mastectomies, vasectomies, donation of a kidney, and so on. None of these surgeries represent an immediate risk to life.
In contrast there are two other groups. Urgent surgery that must be performed within 24-48 hours, though that standard may vary based on local laws. There is also emergency surgery, where surgery must be performed with no delay.
Seriously? If I trip and tear some ligaments in my knee, what does smoking have to do with it? What does obesity have to do with it? I pay into the healthcare system, fix my damn knee.
If you are obese, fat tissue in the area can enter into the bloodstream causing an embolism which can cause death. The more obese, the higher the risk of embolisms. That's not to say that the surgery won't be performed, it is that careful consideration will need to take place first before proceeding. If your trip poses a serious and immediate risk to your life, then doctor's are going to get to work right away. However, if your trip basically can be managed and poses no significant threat then doctors for obese patients are going to tread carefully before getting to work.
No one is saying that you'll get no treatment. What they are saying is that patients like yourself can't scream, hoot, and hollar if your lifestyle poses a risk to doctors helping you. If you smoke and/or obese you increase the complexity of opening you up. There other things that do that too, like being on blood thinners and so on, but smoking and obesity are things that to *some* degree people can control. Doctor's don't like playing with high risk non-urgent cases because that's how one, you get people killed that don't need to die and two, you open yourself up for a lawsuit. My goodness people are acting like they've never heard this stuff before? This kind of stuff is the kind of stuff they taught everyone in like 9th grade health class.
I don't think this falls into slippery slope territory. Smoking and obesity aren't things that increase risks in your surgery by something small value, they increase it by large values. Acting like this is some slope that leads us to "death panels", is much like saying, "The Federal government mandates seatbelts, next thing you know they'll be installing cameras in your car and watching you every minute you're in your car." or my personal favorite, "You let your barber cut your hair, next thing you know they'll be lopping off your limbs."
It might be just me, but I think we're really reaching here thinking that this is a gateway to death panels in any country.
How many have anything on them worth attacking?
CPU cycles is one commodity. People tend to use the same password for multiple sites, so finding the one social network that sends it unencrypted is paydirt for someone who will take it and attempt it on other sites.
In other words, net neutrality is government regulation to try to fix a problem created by government regulation.
See here's the thing. You are grouping all government into one big pile to make an argument and believe or not, I know this might come as a shock, local government is distinctly different than federal government. I know, surprising... Net neutrality is a federal guideline for how ISPs must conduct their business. Now how they go about that when it gets down to the local level, that's up to local governments to figure out. But let's be real here. The Federal government isn't fixing a problem they've made, they are outlining a minimum standard for ISPs at a broad level. The Federal government isn't even getting into the muck of trying to clean up the monopolies that small government has made.
It's that they assume ISPs are a competitive market
No, I assume that my local government is going to act as corrupt as they possibly can while screaming, we've got to save the babies from the evil abortion clinics to ensure that they get voted in next go-around. Because dumb fuck citizens basically think of politics as, "Good Internet" or "Saving children from evil doctors." I would hope, that a different level of government not so entrenched in backwoods dumb fuckery will step in and at the very least give some sort of guide line with some teeth to prevent my dumb fuck local officials from fucking up everything else in the world that's on the Internet. That shouldn't be a monumental task, but apparently everyone wants to make this out like it's some lesson in economics. It isn't. It basically boils down to this. Small town mayors are always going to go with whatever deal gets them enough money to put up another stop light, or lock up another meth head, because that shit looks good in the papers. If Comcast is offering Mr. Dumb fuck, my mother and sister are the exact same person, mayor (good chance that the mayor I've got fits this bill nicely) $10 million to be the only ISP in town, guess who's getting a new PD car complete with meth-head seeking missiles? So there's no illusion that our local governments suck massive donkey dick here and take money where they can get it. That ISPs take full advantage of that, isn't surprising. Net neutrality at the very least puts some clamps on that. It doesn't get rid of Incest born mayors who will setup a monopoly at the first paycheck, but it does prevent those ISPs from getting too crazy with their extortion. So until the Federal Government says, well we're not going to allow mayors or governors to exist anymore, or when the public actually can understand that you can care about two topics at the same time, I'll take ISPs having to uphold a decent level of fairness.
I don't know where you live buddy where this is just an economic fix, but apparently it isn't here in the south US where every politician will stomp a kitten to death on public access TV if it means they'll get another $5/mo pouring into their school lunch program. Shit I wish the problem was just "break up the monopolies."
through generalized methods
This is the thing that should get people moving and yet barely incites a reaction. The Internet is only a generalized method because of net neutrality. If that is gone, the Internet is no better than having cable TV or Sat TV, it just becomes a standard piece of hardware like a TV, but the TV itself is useless without content. The Internet works because content is equalized and it is equalized because it is all served the same way at the same rate without regard of the origin. I can't understand why American's are not marching with tiki torches in hand outside the FCC building, it literally boggles my mind.
I'm going to first say I applaud your comment, there's nothing in it that I disagree with. So what follows might sound like I'm being condescending to your comment, but I in full lock, stock, and barrel agree with what you've got there.
lets not pretend its some sort of death sentence for Homo Sapiens
Well, you are right. All of humanity is not likely to die in the event of ongoing global warming. However, I think it is fairly accurate to say that a LOT will die. First world nations will struggle maybe the poorest of those countries die, everyone else I think ranges from descent into utter chaos, war, and outright barbarism (so not unlike Syria right now) to complete desertion of some segment of land that used to be called a nation (Sort of like what the Maldives have planned).
And now add modern technology
Right, but as you might have noticed, not every place where there are humans is there technology and something tells me, push come to shove, first world nations will be more than happy to see the majority of the African continent die off, to name one massive victim of global environmental change. But that's just the cynic in me, who knows, our altruistic nature may be embolden by disaster? But something tells me that when a lot of countries start fighting over lack of food (because hunger is a real strong driving factor for war), the countries that have food but of questionable supply will more than likely do nothing unless the fight starts bleeding across their border.
It would be a painful transition given the rapid onset of the changes
I think you are underselling that. While we're really clever, we're not at the point where we can in wholesale genetically modify everything we eat to sustain the environmental changes that are happening. Now one day in the future the only things left alive may be the things we've GMO'ed to the new world (since evolution can't keep up with us) and the things that have figured a way to survive, and perhaps our bodies will change as well to be able to call those things that have changed nourishment, but dang if it ain't going to be a lot of painful in the interim. Oh as an aside, I really hope future humans decide that cats are important enough to GMO so that they can live in the increased heat and have reduced food requirements (since food will be human first, things that we can use as food second, more than likely no third), would be a shame to see them all go.
quite survivable as an adaptable intelligent species that is not locked into a particular environment niche
And I know I sound like a fear monger, but I like to think of it as one of those harsh truths that we need to talk about. That we can survive begs the question of do we want to survive like that? Should we survive like that? Wouldn't we rather survive in a manner that is a whole lot less shitty? I'm just saying, because honestly I'll be good and dead by the time this shit storm of a hurricane we're making comes full force onto land, so my opinion of what future Homo Sapiens might or might not, should or should not, will or will not want is really pointless. But I figure that they'd most likely want something that is a lot less difficult to live in than what we had, rather than more difficult. But that's just me.
Now truth be told, we really don't know how "painful" this is going to be, but I think even those trying to keep the middle ground and be level headed about this can agree, no one is going to enjoy what is about to happen.
I wonder if stuff like this could be mitigated by BLU having the kernel drivers available, if not open-sourced, so people could make custom ROMs.
Not everything that makes up all the needed bits for these devices have open sourced drivers. That's no excuses for at least releasing the open parts. However, this is actually a larger existential problem, so much so, that the maintainer of Android's Open Source Project AOSP basically quit his job and basically asked what's the f***ing point if an OS doesn't do anything on modern hardware. The Nexus 4 and 7 devices made by Google included lots of hardware that just was never going to be able to have drivers open sourced. Since then, the problem has only gotten worse, yes even the beloved Raspberry Pi has binary drivers and the people who make the Pi are not abashed by this point because, completely open sourced has never been one of their goals. True the OS is open since it is Linux, but what good is it when only the Kernel and a few support libraries are all that are open source? Or as the former AOSP maintainer put it, "There's no point being the maintainer of an Operating System that can't boot to the home screen on its flagship device for lack of GPU support"
But I digress, because I'm not getting to the point here. BLU contracted out to a third party to maintain their firmware, because maintaining an image is a lot of work. That third party was Adups Technology and they themselves had a set of ad networks that they use to serve up ads, much like how any other phone serves up Google ads. At anyrate, Adups' network of ads networks had some nodes that were serving up malware embedded into the ad. When Adups' software loaded the ad it loaded up the infection.
This is the thing about ads in apps. Those ads have to come from somewhere and you are putting a lot of trust in the person who's delivering those ads that those ads are trojans. Now you as a firmware company might also have your own ad agency (I know weird combination) as well, so basically people come to you and you design and deliver the ad. But if that's not you (more likely situation), then someone else designs the ad and sends it to the delivery network, the delivery network either sends it directly to the device or sends it on upstream to someone who aggregates these things to be sent out to the device. etc, etc, etc... Fun stuff.
Open sourcing things might help a bit, but not really. But honestly, piecemeal keeping up with licence is it's own job for really large projects. Some places, especially Chinese places, don't really care and grab whatever kernel version they are using from kernel.org and put that up on their website for GPL compliance. Same thing for the other bits. After that bit of hassle is done, it's basically a binary blob that's closed off. It's the fun part of cutting corners that goes on in some of the cut-throat mobile market.
That way, there would be some faith that the phones would have been shipped clean and decently secure.
Even if the phone shipped clean, if the ad network that you trust delivers the malware behind your back because the ad network didn't catch it, then you're hosed that way. Clean phone or not. To summarize here.
TL;DR - This infection was delivered via the ad network, so open source or not, you would have been hosed. However, open sourcing a device is a lot easier said than done as a lot of hardware is impossible (well, not impossible but many companies that make the ICs are very, very unwilling so you might as well say impossible) to open source. Additionally, even if you just gave out the parts that are open, that's an insanely complex task of putting it together that a lot of cut-throat companies won't go through.
It's not a problem until it happens to you or someone close to you.
You can literally say that about everything. I could get into my car tomorrow and a semi pulling gasoline could fall off an overpass bridge onto the Interstate as I travel under it. However, I'm not going to worrying about that, until it actually happens. Say diff with self-driving cars, except it'll happen a whole lot less because we have things that are distracted by phones, radio stations, hamburgers their trying to eat, phone calls they're trying to make, or hot women in another car they're trying to watch among a list of other reasons humans have killed other humans with two tons of 45 to 70 MPH hunks of iron.
certify to the point that you can guarantee people's lives
If that's the goal, you'll never reach it. AI isn't aiming for perfection, it's aiming for better than human. It's already there easily. People will die in self-driving cars, people will get ran over by self-driving cars.
But there will be fewer people who die in self-driving cars, there will be fewer people who get ran over by self-driving cars. Humans in aggregate suck at driving, we killing a ton of other humans at insane rates per minute around the world. There is literally zero ways where AI will be worse at this than we humans already are.
The air was worse back then?
It was worse back then, but it depends on how you define worse. The air had way more soot back then because humanity was very inefficient at burning fuels back then. When we got better at burning it, we released a lot more sulphur which in turned cause more acid rain. We've gotten better at the sulphur part, which in turn means our more pressing issue now is the CO2 content.
So quick recap. Soot is worse because it is a massive irritant. Sulphur is worse because it turns rain into acid. CO2 is worse because it's warming the planet. We're finding all kinds of fun new things out about burning fossil fuels.
Yes, systemd homogenizes Linux... Down to the level of utter, absolutely unstable crap like Windows.
Compared to the situation of Linux, with not "half a dozen BSD", but litterally HUNDREDS of distributions, I am not sure you are being serious...
Well now I'm confused because you're talking in circles. Additionally, if you're sitting there saying there's only three BSD but hundreds of Linux distros then you might as well toss in the towel on your argument. Only three BSDs, pfft. Okay, so you're willing to say Dragonfly BSD is just FreeBSD, but that same thinking doesn't hold water with something like CentOS is just RedHat? If you seriously think there's 100s of distros, I'll give you that, but you're going to have to abandon your idea of only three BSDs. Otherwise, you're just skirting facts to wax your ego.
Hilarious. Try getting actual, useful support from Red Hat and SuSE, to name just two of the biggest... Go on, I'll be waiting right here.
I've never had a problem with RedHat support. Of course, I don't call them and act like an asshat.
The level of incompetence in these companies is simply astounding.
Yes, which is why they're making money. Again, please refer to my "Slashdot users like to use dated examples that aren't in line with reality" point that I made in my previous post. You might as well convince me that Java is slow as dirt since v1.2 was so horrible and obviously no one can improve software. Or something like JavaScript couldn't possibly be used for serious software development. Or webapps suck compared to full desktop applications.
I could go on refuting your ridiculous arguments again and again
Wow, way to not act like the very stereotype I was referring to. I mean what with the whole inflated ego, I'm so much smarter than you I don't have time to even type things on a keyboard that's how beneath me your are... The, I know so much about AWS, let me demonstrate what words you are using incorrectly. I mean do you tell people who call it toilet paper, "NO!! IT IS CALLED TOILET TISSUE!!!"? You must be a peach to work with and I know, because I've worked with similar folks like yourself that spray themselves daily with eau de superiority. Just something about the IT field draws the folks with superiority complexes for some reason.
Actually, no, systemd IS the reason serious system administrators and quite a few devops are leaving Linux behind.
Well I'm guessing that number of people leaving Linux includes you and maybe a few of your buddies, wunderbar. So now that we've got that out of the way,
care to back that up at all with actual numbers? Are we just going to go ahead and assume your big brain knows better? It's not a chore to see that Linux adoption has pretty much been the same as it has been the last five or so years, that the number of jobs that ask for Linux skillset hasn't changed, that pretty much this massive decline that you speak of, it just isn't happening. Oh here's something for you, but by all means, feel free to put whatever you've got here (I mean only if the almighty has time to mingle with us simpletons of course) and don't let me try to convince you of anything. I'm so sure your opinion is way more accurate than market analysis, because, well you know.
Your level of ignorance is frankly stunning.
Sticks and stones buddy. However, I find your breed fun at a distance. Something about the blatant display of hyper-amped egos and the sheer level of tunnel vision is amazing. It is stunning really. Just one question, when you wake up are you able to see anything outside of the three degrees of your field of vision that's
No, Bill Joy was the heart of BSD, when he moved on to Sun, BSD was done. No one could fire up the folks like Joy, no one had the passion like Joy. When he left, it was like walking into a bakery with the oven off and the door left open to the winter outside. Linus sticking so strongly with the project he started and guiding it the way he did in the early days is what lead to Linux rocketing upward. People like to cite how exciting it was or whatever, but it was the leadership between the two projects that made the difference. All the other stuff is just a by-product IMHO.
It's getting to the point where Linux really doesn't offer any substantial benefits over the *BSDs. In many ways the *BSDs offer significant advantages over Linux.
Welp I know this will get modded down, but hell why not play devil's advocate here? Vendor support. You have actual companies that will stand behind and certify software and hardware for Linux. Not so much for BSDs. Also, you kind of point out the problem with BSD. This BSD is good for this, this BSD is good for that. Not many businesses have the time to sit there and evaluate ten different BSDs to figure out which one provides the most bang for buck, where as much as everyone hates it, systemd homogenizes Linux. A single known Linux versus a half dozen BSDs where commercial support is iffy at best, guess which one is going to win in the mind of the non-technical person who write the check that will pay for the installation.
The *BSDs are becoming the go-to operating system for a wide range of computing needs, from servers to workstations to embedded systems.
I don't doubt that BSDs are getting deployed, but you are over stating the figure a bit. Newer folks in the industry are learning Linux and while the old hats like the way BSD works and feels, the newer folks don't really give a stink. Most of them will get ten seconds to have 100 servers up and running, ready for whatever software the PHB has selected. With BSD you'll be lucky to get past configuring disks in that ten seconds. With Linux you'll have an army of AWS boxes at your command ready to go before your first cup of coffee is poured.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here dissing the BSD folks, but there's a serious need for folks to look past systemd as the sole reason everyone and their dog is leaving Linux. That's not happening and people yelling this argument sound a lot like how people used to junk on Java for how poorly 1.2 ran all the way up to where Java EE and Spring is pretty much everywhere. It's seriously getting old and Linux's popularity hasn't gone anywhere and doesn't look like it is going anywhere anytime soon.
All the different BSDs are great and they have their place. However, I hear arguments about systemd and the majority of them are dated as hell, just like when Java 6 was out and people would rag on it like everyone was still using Java 1.2. So all the different BSDs, they're doing great, I mean look at Yahoo, they're still running all their stuff on BSD. There's a good amount of IoT that is running some version of BSD. I'm not saying BSD isn't some hot stuff right now. What I am saying is that Linux is way more known and a lot of folks know it as the go-to-solution, systemd and all. Additionally, systemd, while contentious, has not been the death knell for Linux that everyone would like to think. It has been an evolution, to try and put the best spin on the systemd situation, but there's actual vendors with money on the line who have a vested interest in seeing systemd become stable. For the most part, it has become a stable system. That's not to say everything is rosy now, but systems with systemd on the server and a person well versed in systemd are good enough for actual production systems, Amazon among others have shown that very clearly.
especially now that nearly all Linux distros have started using systemd which has caused stability and reliability problems for lots of users.
At some point Slashdot users need to break the stereotype that we all beat a dead horse into jell-o. One sided shit like this and everyone who chimes in with "MOD UP!" are all echoing a view that is years old, and yes, I'm pretty sure Slashdot will be first to amp to front page any failure of systemd, because that's what the mob likes, because Slashdotter just can't stop kicking the horse. But truth be told, every flipping OS on the planet has bugs and some of them are pretty damn serious and require fixes, that's how software works. But c
What happened was, we'd already been using it for years so it sounded really stupid and it was only ever a joke where people laughed at anybody who had repeated the phrase.
Finally, the correct answer on Slashdot. The year of Linux was never a real thing and that's the entire point. Windows is the main one you see because pretty much everyone has built a toolset around it. There's literally zero need to toss your entire tool box away for just the sake of tossing it. People who toss Windows for Linux or Mac do it for pragmatic reasons (tool that is there and not found anywhere else) or ideological reasons (I heart libre/member of the cult of Steve). But honestly, if Windows gets you through the day, DO NOT CHANGE. Me. I was too broke to purchase Win95 and I thought the start button was a horrible idea (my stance on that has changed since then), so I went to Wal-Mart bought a giant stack of floppies and went to the city library, which had a local mirror of things on the Kent State FTP site, to download Slackware, never looked back.
There's always this group of folks who get too religious about Linux and feel like, that if they only spread the gospel and save just one person from Windows, then whatever the means to get that, shouldn't be overlooked. It's those folks who the original "year of Linux" was invented for. It's also those folks who get so polar about new things coming to Linux. systemd is a good example of that. Depending on who you are, it either is killing Linux or is the great salvation. Third option is, you just don't care, which IMHO is the correct option. The Linux community at large has, to me at least, been about trying stuff and seeing what sticks, systemd is just the latest and I'm pretty sure in ten, twenty years, we'll be moving on to some even newer/most betterer init system.
I tell anyone who gets into Linux, just buckle up and enjoy the ride. Try not to take it too serious and always be ready for the next thing to come around the corner. Because, even if Linux isn't top dog and never will be, it most definitely gets the other two dogs in the ring talking, taking notes, and wondering if that's something they want to do with their system. It's mixed parts bitter and fun and I've always gotten a smile being with some of the most harshest and friendliest folks on a project that never ends.
Where Free Speech is not acceptable!
Maybe, my read of it is this. "We police our real people, you need to police your virtual people." Which I find interesting because the EU is basically saying that they don't want to actually pay for virtual policing and would rather these companies do it voluntarily or they'll deputize them by law. I don't think it is so much a free speech attack as it is the EU trying to sluff off the responsibility of doing the thing that a government or government like organization is supposed to do.
Call me crazy, but I get a real feel that governments in first world nations are getting really lazy about the part of the contract their supposed to uphold. Apple unlock this phone, Yahoo give me all your emails, Verizon record everything for us. Stop trying to third party responsibility. You want the Internet policed, you want to define hate speech and "protect" folks from it. Well get off your collective lazy asses and go do that thing. Stop going after the bar owner just because The Hell's Angels are stopping in his place. It easy to counter this kind of stuff when the person doing it answers to the public. Codify something and make it a private business' problem and suddenly the public can't do squat about it until enough folks get into government/government like entity to vote it away.
Again, that's my read on this, so I could be way out in left field here.
There's a whole lot of subjective "me" in that comment but very little objective "fact". Look if Linux doesn't work for you, okay. You found something else to use? Great! I think we've all moved past the idea that there will ever be a year of the Linux Desktop.
They seem to me like 20-something bearded hipsters trying to Python-script their way to Linux desktop glory.
Really?! These people look like 20-something hipsters? Have you ever worked in a programming job? Because these folks look exactly like the last three groups of folks I've worked with which is typically a pretty diverse mix of folks.
I give up. I declare the Linux desktop fragmentation thoroughly fatal.
Well I'm sure we're all glad that you've finally declared that. We have all been waiting with bated breath for you to go one way or the other. We can all now rest easy knowing for sure which way you lean on the matter.
Using as many acronyms as possible all starting with/having a J is also a time-honored tradition. What with EJB, JAAS, JAX-WS, JAX-RS, JSP, JSF, JTA, JPA, JMS, JCA, and on and on and on the list goes.
Yeah it is kind of like that. You do have to keep your wits about you with sudden lane departures. So like say the car indicates that it's following the car in front of you, it does this with a little blue car icon. If that car does the sudden swerve into the right or left lane to avoid a completely stopped car, you have to jump in, basically tap on the brake. If you set the car distance to a good length, like 2 or 3, you absolutely have plenty of time to react. While I was driving we hit a construction zone and I just went full manual then, so no word on how it would handle that. The time I got to drive I didn't take my eyes off traffic and what the car was doing, but it was nice not having to manage the constant gas, brake, gas, brake motions.
I'll add this, that in no way was I ever left the impression that I could brake out my Kindle and just start reading while in traffic. You do need to babysit the car. I get that a lot of people will say, "What's the point then?" But it does help in its own little way. You get to think less about what your speed is and what you need to input on the accelerator to obtain that speed, or how much you need to brake to slow down to the person in front of you. There might be more to all of it, but again I have only driven one, once, and it wasn't an incredibly long distance, though it was like forty minutes of stop and go.
My chief complaint about Safari has been the lack to specify domains that are allowed to display popups. While I get that popups are bad, some sites still persist in their usage and some of those sites I'd like to allow without having to resort to scripts and JSON. Until then I'll continue to happily use Firefox.
Also... Taking cover for admitting to being a Firefox user. Really Slashdot, I can understand some of the hate.
Friend's car on a trip to a conference I got to actually try one of these out, these systems are a godsend in stop and go traffic. Did not test the thing on the open road.
We will be keeping those fossil fueled power generators around for a long time yet
There's usually an eye roll that goes along with these kinds of pedantic statements, because people who actually understand how things work (and I am not saying you are not one of them, you more than likely are just really simplifying the whole topic, and I understand and respect that) know we're not bringing fossil fuels to 0% anytime soon. The simplicity of your comment might as well have been, "ending usage of fossil fuels won't end hurricanes." That statement isn't incorrect, but it is a really simplified response full of snark to a really general way of thinking of a problem we now face. Which I get, it's bad for people to blame global warming for hurricanes that are happening now because it is not a 100% accurate way of talking about global warming. But I digress before we go down that rabbit hole any further.
Now one day, and that day is long after everyone here reading this comment is dead, we will have ended the usage of fossil fuels for the majority of industrial and metro power generating. It will have more to do with the increasing difficulty of extracting fossil fuels and less to do with some holy war of clean vs dirty power. That doesn't mean the latter will have nothing to do with it, just in case you get the wrong idea here. I'm not standing on a economically reasonable only platform, its a light mixture of the two ideas I just stated, plus a whole lot of global politics mixed in there that I'm going to not be bringing up. But all of that I just stated plus a bit more ultimately will be guiding the world as to what we move to next. But to keep it simple, as it stands, coal is the first causality of this ever increasing difficulty of "access to." Will we ever use 0% coal? More than likely not, but as time goes on we will be less inclined to burn it for lighting someone's light bulb or cooking their Hot Pocket, we will all think that's just stupid considering it has a way better use in something like steel production. That's not today, but I would wager that it is sooner rather than later. So when I say causality, I don't mean death of coal absolute. I and many others mean it in these terms of being more conservative with the resource than we previously have been.
Eventually, all fossil fuels will come to this point. It will seem really silly for us to use natural gas to heat someone's water, or for us to use oil to lubricate someone's car when both of those will be better used for heating a hospital or lubricating a wind farm or whatever. It's about the same state of mind that Slashdot seems to get into when we think about using Helium in balloons. It is a really silly usage of a resource that is limited that can be better used elsewhere. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not attributing to humanity the notion of always picking the "better" for whatever terms that might mean, method of using a resource. However, the economics of things being an awfully powerful force for changing people's minds.
So that said, I just want to touch real lightly on coal for a second, since it is the first one on the chopping block that we rely on for a majority of our current power production. Again, by chopping block, I mean that in terms of having to rethink its usage, not it's absolute demise. About 53% of the coal that we know about is still left for us to extract and is slightly economical to pull out of the ground. The remaining 47% of the coal that we do know about is just not feasible to extract economically and maybe that will change with some sort of technological leap. Even still, the coal we do know about is but only 30% of all the coal that is thought to exist on the planet. So that 53% roughly represents about ~15% of all the coal we think is out there. At some point as we get close to the bottom of that 53%, with out any clear change to getting at that 47%, we're all going to really be rethinking if we should be burning the stuff for powering homes ver
That's a nice, far-away target date that lets people feel good about themselves
Maybe
without actually having to do anything
Oh do not confuse good vibes with actual industry. The lithium market is really getting competitive and China stands to earn a lot in the export of raw materials. China pretty much is in some ratio promoting clean cars and the fact they want to make a lot of money on this resource that they sit on. If you're cynical, I guess you could call that ratio as 10/90 or if you are optimistic you could say it is 50/50, but one cannot just say clean cars without also saying China pumping up a new industry and hoping to cash in.
Plus there's plenty of time to extend the deadline when it eventually approaches
True, but investors don't like to wait. Look at ETF and it's prices over the last year. It's gone from ~$20 to ~$38 with an increase in investment of about $41 million this year alone. They've very much indicated that come 2025~2030 they intend to see some of that initial investment pay off. Now will that amount to anything? No, investors aren't gods and they can't make a government that actively refuses to switch, switch. But they are busy little bees at times.
Either way, it is still a monumental task to do what these governments say they want to do. However, thinking that there's no pressure for them to do that is folly at best.
Change the law.
Well there in lies the problem. The law as it does not say, "If here illegally, deport immediately." There's a basic outline about how one goes about legally immigrating here from another country. However, there's exceptions to that for humanitarian reasons, political prosecution, temporary work visas, people of strategic value, education purposes, and on and on and on and on and on and on. There's also laws that bar some types of folks from entering all together.
In addition to all of these exceptions, most of the laws either create a department under the President or leave to the Executive branch's guidance how to enforce that exception, ban, correction to law, etc.
DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers
Well if you feel that way then you should have a heart to heart with your member of Congress for granting that power to the President to read the law as they see fit. FYI, Congress has a nasty habit of passing incredibly vague laws and then leaving it to the President to actually bring the details. This is actually a sort of on purpose thing because it basically shifts blame for bad laws to the President rather the members that created the law. So if you are outraged about all of this, and I'm not one to say your outrage is misplaced, you should at the very least aim your outrage at the correct branch. This is equally true when you hear things like "Judge's writing laws from the bench". Again, this is mostly cited in cases where Congress wrote an incredibly vague law and a judge has to sort out what the meaning of the law is. Again, same reason, if things go sideways, it is easy for Congress to shift blame to the person clarifying it. It's easy to to write a law and then later go "That's not what we meant!!!" It is more politically risky to write a law that spells everything out.
with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch
That's not what happened. The Executive branch chose a course of action to implement a series of laws that Congress has passed over the last sixty years. Congress did not agree to that specific implementation but refuses to give more information about what they feel is the better way because it might cost them votes. You can think of it like this. On my way to work there's a posted speed limit. However, rarely is that enforced during rush hour unless the person in question is recklessly speeding. I'm not part of highway patrol so I cannot voice for "why" this happens, but I've seen cops sit and watch traffic uniformly moving five to seven MPH over the limit with not even a hint that anything will be done. The law is anyone speeding is breaking the law, but the implementation is vastly different considering circumstances. I won't pretend to know what factors play into that decision making.
Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.
You are quite correct on sustainable end of that statement, but incorrect in that the President isn't choosing laws to enforce or not enforce, but again I'll refer you to your closest Congressional Member to take that up with. The President is enforcing all laws, it is just how the President reads those laws and what they mean to his/her administration. There's no selection process, again, the 70 MPH limit could be read as explicitly nothing over 70 MPH or read as prevent reckless driving, when cops sit on the side and watch rush hour pass by moving at faster than that 70 MPH, I can only assume that they are taking the latter read on that, but I'm not a cop, so I could not say for sure. I digress however. Immigration policy is a very polarizing topic and members are sure to lose votes if they take a hard stance on either side. Thus, the method has been to take no firm stance and allow the current administration to deal with the matter. Now the cu
it's exponentially cheaper to produce
Are you talking about the hardware or the publishing? If the hardware, that's a iffy position unless you are mass maker of radios. While it is cute to compare something like Pandora or whatever to FM Radio, it would be more accurate to compare to HD Radio which has way more complicated and expensive circuits to implement. Many of those circuits are also under patents for HD Radio, so to build a radio it would be prudent to include licensing costs. If we're talking the publishing, the Internet is vastly cheaper to make an MP3 and share on the Internet versus trying to broadcast via FM.
doesn't count against their bandwidth cap
No argument here
no conceivable way to build in copy protection
Again, that's if we're talking FM radio. If we're talking HD radio then it's a different story.
Now I can only speak on my own behalf, but the biggest reason I don't listen to radio is that it is mostly ads. About 20 minutes of music and about 40 minutes of ads. And in the time that they do broadcast content, it's the same eleven songs that they've played for the last three months. This isn't like OTA HDTV, there's ads, yes, but in terms of absolute minutes of content vs absolute minutes of ads, there's no contest. The TV broadcasts vastly less ads than radio. So I actually value OTA HDTV simply because the content isn't drowned out by ads. I also like some of the shows that come on TV so that adds to the value. Additionally, TV isn't showing the same episode of CSI every other hour, so that really amps the value up.
Radio, at least for myself, is a product that has zero value because of decisions made by the broadcaster. The cost of the content is irrelevant here because personally I see zero value in the content. So the argument that it's cheaper and costs me less in bandwidth have no meaning. Zero cost for content that has zero value is just a wash. Radio's problems are a product of bad management, not one of cost to end consumer.
That's just my two cents and I'm a firm Gen X here. I can't really blame Millennials or Gen Z for not listening to radio. It literally is the Applebee's Effect going on here.