wouldn't they make themselves more liable for the things that slip by?
Yes and no. In the world of PR yeah, it would totally bite if you were actively filtering and something slipped by. In the legal world, no. It's not like Facebook or Twitter enjoy some sort of public utility freedom, they're a business just like any other. McDonald's has security in their restaurants but no one is suing them if someone walks in and empties round after round into folks shoving hamburgers and nuggets into their face. At some point, it's obvious that you can't stop every single thing, nothing man-made is 100% and the legal system understands that. The general public however has unrealistic expectations of pretty much everything, so most of the policies at social media sites have little to do with actual legal CYA and more to do with public image. Now that's not 100% of those policies, the ones pertaining to owning of copyright and what not are semi-legit, but the majority of the ones about safe places and their judgement about your free speech, blah blah blah, are mostly legal sounding bullshit to appease the public.
So that said, if anyone of them wanted to actively start monitoring posts and deleting content on whatever whim flies up their butt, they could do so with little to no repercussions legally and doing so wouldn't put the burden on them to ensure zero terrorist attacks happened using their product. However, publicly, the first time they do it, you'd have a ton of people screaming out in horror and vowing to never use them again or posting some legal sounding bullshit that means nothing on their timeline. (All of which has happened in the past and meant absolutely nothing when people did it then). Hell they could just say, anyone posting Trump on their timeline gets insta-banned from Facebook and there is nada anyone could do about it legally. Now it would be a PR nightmare to recover from but legally they would be on pretty solid ground.
Now there are still some things that Facebook has to watch for and report and what-not because of legal obligations, like threats of violence, child porn, and so on, but that's not because of any specific law that applies to Facebook/Twitter/Google but to laws that specifically apply to violence/kiddie porn/drugs/money laundering/etc. There's not much in the way of laws for social media and what not specifically, which is way seemingly non-related laws are cited in cases that involve anyone of these companies (such as laws dating from 1789 wink wink). Most first world nations' laws are so out of sync with the technological reality that we live in, that it's almost humorous to think about how unregulated the Internet still is to this date. That's not me saying that we need more regulation or anything like that, I honestly could not care less about regulating the Internet. But what I am saying is that the number of laws that specifically target things invented in the last two decades versus the number of laws invented in the same amount of time is laughable.
They feel differently when it's a Western company "violating" a Chinese company's patent.
Exactly this, calling the Chinese Judicial system an actual Judicial system is playing extremely loose with what those words mean. I mean, there is justice, but about as much justice that could be meted out with weighted dice in place for actual judges, if the dice are weighted against you, you might as well hang it up and find out how to get your own set of weighted dice. More than likely Apple will pay whatever "operating cost" they need to pay and move on with their lives. More so, this is exactly how business as usual runs in China. There are certain "operating costs" that have to be paid before you sell something/build something/enslave someone there and failure to do so has you running afoul with the Judicial system.
This isn't Apple's first rodeo in the Chinese legal system and they're well aware of what needs to be done. Doing business in China is a balance of how much are you willing to pay off people and how much you stand to profit. The more you want to profit, the more of that profit you need to "invest" in the Chinese legal system. The Chinese don't see it so much as bribery as the do what they tend to call it "investments". People who sell products in China, need to be vested in the unique interest of China in order to sell their wares there. Or at least that's how the logic works that I've been explained. But I must say that it sounds like it would be dreadful to do business in that country.
Damn it, look what you did. You brought up the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit on Slashdot, which always elicits 50+ posts of pedantic nerds re-debating the merits of the suit. Let it go, people. That was years ago.
Just look at where we are at. Exactly in the spot that he warned us all about. When will we ever learn?! When?/s
You are correct on both parts. IPv6 makes it easier to geolocate fixed nodes. It is easier to geolocate fixed nodes because of what you stated. A single block can cover every single customer an ISP has and could ever have until the end of time. Mobile nodes not so much, but let's not muddy the waters here. The studios are the ones that brought this to Netflix and more than likely they'll bring it to everyone else in good time. The problem with being first and Netflix is they're the ones stuck trying to build the database and developing relationships with folks like Comcast, who would love for you to roll over and die any day now, to keep that database up-to-date enough to please the content gods.
It's a super shitty situation that Netflix is being placed in and Netflix is deploying a really brain dead way of trying to weasel out of this rock and hard place. Geez, I hate the way all this crap goes down because they all are acting like stupid five year olds.
I tend to favor this explanation as to why robot overlords won't kill us. More than likely machines of infinite wisdom just wouldn't bother since we do a pretty good job at the killing humans part. If anything an intelligent AI would ensure a Trump presidency and then fake some emails from Putin of the yo mama kind.
That's exactly how I read it. All the excuses giving are weak at best. Microsoft doesn't want to invest the time and money. But figures, Microsoft's products that are non-office are mostly turning into trash.
You are exactly correct. Distros will have the final say in conf defaults. I don't see many holding onto the yes value for server branded versions of their distros, way too much breakage. For desktop and workstation, maybe, we will have to see. But seriously, this whole thing is a massive overreaction to a value that can be changed in a text editor in less than two seconds. But of course we all know that any systemd news instantly makes front page because of the massive knee jerk Slashdot has for systemd.
but for anybody doing any real work a thin client laptop is completely inadequate
I beg to differ. We have hundreds of Chromebooks deployed that talk to our warehouse management system. They process orders, take mail from clients, move product onto trucks, print VICS bill of ladings, are able to access their dashboards, and so forth. I would say all of that is real work. I get what you are saying and I don't disagree on the finer points like wanting to power through spreadsheets, manage a workflow for 100s of photos, do 3d rendering, etc... But Chromebooks do actually do work. Our warehouses are not the only place where this happens, we've been to some of our customer's manufacturing sites and they use Chromebooks to interact with the SCADA, enter in lab results from QA, and so on. Again, your argument isn't lost here, but what I am saying is that there is still lots of work to be done with thin clients and Chromebooks fit the bill quite nicely.
I had modpoints but I found out that commenting prevents me from using them, I'd still upvote you because you don't have a completely wrong argument, but it's an incomplete argument at best.
I'm the new RPGLE programmer in an AS400 shop and I'm surrounded by developers like you. Long story short, the 20+ year old code base is crap, none of the neck breads know what the hell is going on in the system and then blame it on bad data. Everything in the system from a user's perspective is confusing. And after a few years of using the system these folks wrote, our clients scream for SAP or RedPrairie. And these folks keep telling themselves, "They don't know what they're missing! We can roll out changes in days not months! They'll be sorry!" All the while I sit there and see our company bleeding money out because people like you think you can do no wrong and are artist and the code you write is somehow magical.
I'm not saying unit test and agile development fix bad programmers, but what I am saying is the free roam model of programming leads to a lot of crap and loss of money. And the self righteous nature means they'll never understand why our clients go elsewhere and never return. It just is so frustrating to work with people like you because you all believe that you can do no wrong. People want software that works. Sometimes that means unit testing, sometimes it doesn't, but if just go around yelling, code is art and the users exist only to ruin it! You're just blowing your company's money out the window. Just bloody hell, and you wonder why they keep outsourcing? Well just look in the mirror one day, there you go. Please never work within a 500 mile radius of Atlanta.
I'll take my troll mod now. For this person it was worth it. And trust me bud, I know that everything I've said has fallen on deaf ears.
Well, you HAD more mod points, but they are in some binary log format, and good luck finding them.
Sigh. I get it no one likes systemd, blah blah. But believe it or not as time has moved on, the binary logs are quite resistant and the format is fairly simple in nature. Likewise, most emergency boots now include journalctl. A simple journalctl --file some_log_file will allow you to browse ad-hoc any file you toss as it so long as it is uncompressed (which as an aside, if you compressed syslog you'd be no better at this point) Even the ones that journalctl --verify says are corrupt. The corruption most of the time post version 205 is that an index was not written. And even if that's not the case, you can force it to display what it can read.
I think the binary argument is a hollow argument at this point. The logs are pretty good at not becoming corrupt and tools are pretty much included now in most recovery tool sets. I see it as no different as say when a PostgreSQL database becomes corrupt. And if you really just hate the idea of binary, you can configure journald to use syslog, and no that doesn't require a recompile.
If you want my arguments of anti-systemd it would be the team that develops it is one of the worse teams to work with and the amount of scope creep is frightening. I think we can all agree that those two things pose the most headache to systemd than this notion of "oh the files are in binary, you boned brah!" Is systemd an ideal solution, nope. But as much as everyone tried, upstart and the like of init replacements were going nowhere fast. At some point, the haters are going to have to realize, they're still working on systemd and they are still making changes to make the tools better and the formats more resilient. Does that mean there will be 0 corruption, no. But you do have to realize that the project is still being actively maintained and they are addressing or have addressed many concerns the enterprise customers have had with it. There's real money being toss at the project to work things that people don't like out of it.
TL;DR - I'm not a huge fan of systemd mostly because of the crazy scope creep, but c'mon the binary argument is so behind us now.
even if they did care, what are they gonna do -- vote for Hillary instead?!
Exactly this! Trump knows now he can just middle finger all the folks that bought the outlandish act. He's now the GOP guy and there's nothing that can be done about it. The guy is so all over the place I wouldn't put it past him to just start saying crap like, "Oh, wal!l? Nah, that's just a good idea but we're not really going to do that." In this guy's mind all those promises made are gone since that phase of the election is over, then only thing he needs to do is promise his way to a Clinton defeat, what that costs him, he could not care less.
They're not entitled to smartphones. Why not take them away?
And then what? Okay so you've taken the phone away, it is not like they are just going to say, "Oh gee, my phone is gone, I guess I'll do things that I don't normally do." It's like people who yell, "Oh just take food stamps away and people will magically get jobs." People just don't magically change overnight and just simply taking a phone away for any short length of time isn't fixing a perceived problem. Allow them to use it for only an hour a day? That's not going to fix jack all that does is make the whole effort an exercise in futility.
What needs to be done, is to teach a level of responsibility that is required to use these devices. You know how you have to teach a kid to drive like a sane human being? And how that just doesn't happen overnight? Yeah, it's like that. Except we've had cars for quite some time now so we're all pretty on the up and up about what responsible "is". Not so much for phones (we are getting there though). What's the responsible level? Using the phone only to answer calls? Allow at least thirty minutes outside? There's not even a rough outline as to what "responsible" is for phone usage, the only thing people can squarely lay their fingers on is what ISN'T responsible. Like don't use it while watching a movie, don't use it while driving, get out of the house every once and awhile (how often being highly subjective) And so on.
So all of that said, we're still in an infant stage of smartphones and yeah, we're going to be complete morons when it comes to them, congrats CNN for pointing out the blindingly obvious about the human condition. But arbitrarily saying, "Oh just take them away" is also NOT going to solve jack crap. We're going to have to develop through trail and error what we think is best and that's going to take a lot of time to eventually figure that out. And that is the reason "just take them away" does not work, it arguably runs counter to everything we know that might actually work. We're just going to have to grin and bear it and work though this as painful as that sounds.
Which brings me more to the point of...
If your teens would prefer gaming indoors, alone, as opposed to going out to the movies, meeting friends for burgers or any of the other ways that teens build camaraderie, you may have a problem.
Building friends and have a close network of peers is clearly a more favorable position than the opposite. However, the thing I have a problem with is the idea that we still need to go out to the movies or get burgers or any of that other crap to build those things. The methods for how people have met, developed friendship, and created long lasting bonds has always evolved. Note how we don't usually go out on fox hunts with hounds and horseback nonsense to get our monthly get together in. Or how we have a lot fewer formal balls. Etc. We change how we do these things as time marches forward. Am I saying that Facebook is a perfect replacement? Not By A Long Shot. Are we too entrenched into phones? Yeah, more than likely. But saying that the way to counter all of that is to just put the phone down and ignore that the last 30 years happened is just silly. We don't have the answer to how to bring society out of the zombie inducing smartphone era, but I assure you, we're going to have to get use to the idea that the answer very well might include the smartphone in some sort of fashion. Better or worse we've got this new thing and it isn't leaving anytime soon.
So TL;DR the answer to "Why not take them away?" Because it won't work. That's just not how humans operate. For better or worse we're going to have to slowly and painfully figure this crap out and society as a whole will slowly evolve the answers. CNN's piece is so infuriating because it is devoid of anyone talking about actual solutions. It just keeps repeating over and over, "this is a problem, this is a prob
Hell no. It's restricted airspace. Drone strikes me while I'm up in the air I'll be coming after the asshole with a lead pipe. I don't care what what "minor" damage it may or may not do, it's not your airspace, stay the hell out of it or learn to join the airspace in a controlled manner. This kind of crap is like trying to equate bicycles just being wherever the hell they feel like on the road. If drones want to be in a controlled space then they can become more regulated, otherwise stay out there in BFE for all I care and stay out of the airports, why are drone ops not happy with what they already have, why do they need to keep trying to push buttons?
Rep. Blackburn is the worst. She's in the district to the west of me and I hate everything her stupid mouth says that ruins every other county here in Tennessee, but just as well, she's from Williamson County and of course, they think they rule the whole flipping state. With the majority of money in the state of Tennessee locked in that single county, they basically sit there and dictate the state of affairs here in Tennessee. It's no surprise that Blackburn is up there spouting off crap to make every other county in this state pure shit. Bloody hell I hate that county, I hate that some stuck up shit heads basically dictate everything that goes on in this state. I wish they would fix our roads, I wish they would fix our hospitals, but apparently I live in the wrong county to be able to vote any of that from happening and I'll never make enough money in three lifetimes to be able to move to the correct county. There are honest to goodness good folks and I know the south gets a lot of bad press, but there are good people here, but we just have so fucking little so very little in our lives. Internet is just one thing but it's everything, it every fucking thing. And I'm sorry I'm cussing but it's just so flipping bad and I want us to be so great and we could be that if it wasn't for people like Rep. Blackburn. From Memphis to Knoxville people cruse her, but we've got no power to unseat her and apparently that's just the way it is.
Just because there is a new toy that is out, that happens to have the name of a controversial military device it becomes a major threat.
First, before I get mauled, I'm not entirely crazy about this new proposal. Under a particular altitude and as a hobby I think we should leave unregulated, that said... The drone market is filling up. Drones have way more people in it than the model rocket and RC Airplane markets and I would dare say combined. Drones are also a lot more industrious than say the model rocket or RC plane. Drones are being used for photography, to move goods, be the ultra creeper you've always wanted to be, traffic reports, and so on which are all way more than what the model rocket and RC plane market have ever done.
So considering that the drone market has been able to do all of that and the others are a no go, yeah I can see why the FAA feels there is a need to regulated it. Now that's not to say the others can't do that, it just to say that they haven't, if and when they do, then I'm pretty sure they'll start regulating that as well. But let's be very clear that this comment isn't a voice of support or disdain at the regulation. It's that you can't very easily compare model rockets, RC planes, and what have you with the drone market simply because they are vastly different markets. People have found drones to be really useful and have started creating a lot of points where they intersect with everyday life. The same can't be said for those other markets.
For those who like rigorous formulae on why anyone does anything, I would say (and simply my opinion) that the FAA acts when a particular class of aircraft is used in X number of applications that has Y number of general public using those applications and there are Z number of opportunities to purchase that class of aircraft. (I know really rough formula there, I don't espouse to know what goes on inside the FAA's head) However this rough formula would say that as any of those values X, Y, or Z increases, the likelihood that there will be regulation increases proportionally. Drones are "X" used in numerous applications, "Y" are criss crossing the general public a lot, "Z" you can buy them pretty much everywhere. I'm pretty sure the same could have been said about bi-planes in the early days of aviation.
Again, I'm speculating here as to the logic because it would be wrong for us just to assume, "Hey I'm government and I just want to regulate anything and everything I can possibly." If that was truly the case one would think we'd have a modern Stamp Act. However, considering that we are talking about a public entity, we could forgo the speculation and render my entire comment useless and just simply write them an email asking, "Hey what particular factors does your agency feel led to the regulation of drones and not something like RC airplanes or model rockets?" Again, this just my two cents, I don't condone or condemn this new regulation, just speaking purely out of the these things you talked about model rockets and RC planes != drone market and for better reasons than it's named after the thing we use to murder (don't get me started on that) people around the world with.
To quote someone at some point, "It's not about what we can think of now, but what someone down the line will think up of later." But that aside, I can think of a few, though I can't specifically speak about the marketability of these.
LEO could be a staging point or a point of operation for energy production. Solar panels in space do collect more energy than those on Earth. The caveat being transmission from LEO or higher to ground.
Communications and all that fun jazz come to mind as well. While LEO may just be the staging point in global communications, cheap and less government entangled LEO could be the impetus to drive this industry. It's kind of a hit or miss, I won't lie. But companies seem to be all gung-ho when there is less red-tape involved.
Tourism as you pointed out. Let us not forget the almighty power of tourism.
Trash collection, if you can make a market out of it... Let's face it trash in space is a literal mess. Imagine some young hipster type pitching the idea of LEO clean up. Few might bite, but it still could generate some cash for someone.
Going out further. LEO could become a pretty busy place if it's a little more well kept and there are several services for getting your payload up there. That could include anyone wanting to build a company on go outside of LEO (those folks that want to mine the asteroid belt, come to mind).
However, I'll say that it is a bit hard to think of what value opening up LEO for the public would provide. But I would argue that the value is most definitely a non-zero value. So I hope my spattering of ideas provides some level of creativity but I'd side with you on the big shoulder shrug on what *exactly* it could provide.
Please $5400 of that $400 is the filing fee. This guy is incredibly lucky. $5400 in a copyright case is basically $0 for the actual IP holder, since the majority of that left over $5000 will be going to the lawyers. If anything, this is what a slap on the wrist looks like. Copyright cases can quickly escalate into six digits given enough lawyer. Anyone who believes that a paltry $5k is worthy of some massive corp rage is totally missing the whole point that tons of other folks who have cried for fair copyright have been trying to make. $5k is more than a fair amount for clear infringement.
I too lament the way C++ does exceptions versus how Java handles then. That said, you bring a good point. I've seen new guys in the shop coming from a Java background struggling to completely wrap their heads around RAII. Finally in Java is the typical source for the struggle.
Agreed, however some of us inherit the problems and do our best to convince the uppers to allocate time to clean things up. Let's not forget that there are a whole slew of Lennart Poettering wannabes out there that have everything to prove using some of the most horrible coding styles that could ever exist.
A few things out of the way like watering and what not, and yeah this is basically artificial photosynthesis. We do it better than trees, but we're not so good at it that it could become a real contender for extracting fuel from ground. The stuff in the earth has had a few million years head start.
RPG ILE, CL ILE business logic, C++ ILE for controllers, and a front end in Delphi that calls node.js ends on the 400. Yeap, we're slowly moving everything into a EGL / modern RPG backend and totally web frontend. Can't convert a 30 year old base overnight.
From the document, the major rationale for the expected price drop would be from an abundant supply of product. Not due to some new process that makes the product cheaper to build.
So a lot of this is educated guessing. One that there are lot of new production coming on line for batteries. That's a true statement. Two, all of these new players will create a vast supply of batteries. That's a logical outcome that's typically true but not always. Three, this huge supply will drive prices down. Again that's the typical market assumption but it's not always a sure thing.
So it is a one thing leads to another kind of paper. I don't disagree with some of the assumptions made, and the numbers seem conservative enough to not be in the realm of outlandish. So a pretty safe paper in terms of speculation, but not exactly hard truth so take with usual grain of salt here.
Not hating on your comment but I'm going to toss out less and sass/sass script. Additionally CSS does support matching syntax, mathematic operations like every even/odd/nth selection, and has a pretty diverse query notation.
So that said, not saying that qualifies it as whatever someone says is a "programming" language, but CSS has come quite a way from what a lot of people think CSS does. So just so we're clear, I'm not disagreeing with you here, just augmenting the idea of CSS here.
Slashdot Mirror
wouldn't they make themselves more liable for the things that slip by?
Yes and no. In the world of PR yeah, it would totally bite if you were actively filtering and something slipped by. In the legal world, no. It's not like Facebook or Twitter enjoy some sort of public utility freedom, they're a business just like any other. McDonald's has security in their restaurants but no one is suing them if someone walks in and empties round after round into folks shoving hamburgers and nuggets into their face. At some point, it's obvious that you can't stop every single thing, nothing man-made is 100% and the legal system understands that. The general public however has unrealistic expectations of pretty much everything, so most of the policies at social media sites have little to do with actual legal CYA and more to do with public image. Now that's not 100% of those policies, the ones pertaining to owning of copyright and what not are semi-legit, but the majority of the ones about safe places and their judgement about your free speech, blah blah blah, are mostly legal sounding bullshit to appease the public.
So that said, if anyone of them wanted to actively start monitoring posts and deleting content on whatever whim flies up their butt, they could do so with little to no repercussions legally and doing so wouldn't put the burden on them to ensure zero terrorist attacks happened using their product. However, publicly, the first time they do it, you'd have a ton of people screaming out in horror and vowing to never use them again or posting some legal sounding bullshit that means nothing on their timeline. (All of which has happened in the past and meant absolutely nothing when people did it then). Hell they could just say, anyone posting Trump on their timeline gets insta-banned from Facebook and there is nada anyone could do about it legally. Now it would be a PR nightmare to recover from but legally they would be on pretty solid ground.
Now there are still some things that Facebook has to watch for and report and what-not because of legal obligations, like threats of violence, child porn, and so on, but that's not because of any specific law that applies to Facebook/Twitter/Google but to laws that specifically apply to violence/kiddie porn/drugs/money laundering/etc. There's not much in the way of laws for social media and what not specifically, which is way seemingly non-related laws are cited in cases that involve anyone of these companies (such as laws dating from 1789 wink wink). Most first world nations' laws are so out of sync with the technological reality that we live in, that it's almost humorous to think about how unregulated the Internet still is to this date. That's not me saying that we need more regulation or anything like that, I honestly could not care less about regulating the Internet. But what I am saying is that the number of laws that specifically target things invented in the last two decades versus the number of laws invented in the same amount of time is laughable.
They feel differently when it's a Western company "violating" a Chinese company's patent.
Exactly this, calling the Chinese Judicial system an actual Judicial system is playing extremely loose with what those words mean. I mean, there is justice, but about as much justice that could be meted out with weighted dice in place for actual judges, if the dice are weighted against you, you might as well hang it up and find out how to get your own set of weighted dice. More than likely Apple will pay whatever "operating cost" they need to pay and move on with their lives. More so, this is exactly how business as usual runs in China. There are certain "operating costs" that have to be paid before you sell something/build something/enslave someone there and failure to do so has you running afoul with the Judicial system.
This isn't Apple's first rodeo in the Chinese legal system and they're well aware of what needs to be done. Doing business in China is a balance of how much are you willing to pay off people and how much you stand to profit. The more you want to profit, the more of that profit you need to "invest" in the Chinese legal system. The Chinese don't see it so much as bribery as the do what they tend to call it "investments". People who sell products in China, need to be vested in the unique interest of China in order to sell their wares there. Or at least that's how the logic works that I've been explained. But I must say that it sounds like it would be dreadful to do business in that country.
Damn it, pete6677 tried to warn us with
Damn it, look what you did. You brought up the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit on Slashdot, which always elicits 50+ posts of pedantic nerds re-debating the merits of the suit. Let it go, people. That was years ago.
Just look at where we are at. Exactly in the spot that he warned us all about. When will we ever learn?! When? /s
You are correct on both parts. IPv6 makes it easier to geolocate fixed nodes. It is easier to geolocate fixed nodes because of what you stated. A single block can cover every single customer an ISP has and could ever have until the end of time. Mobile nodes not so much, but let's not muddy the waters here. The studios are the ones that brought this to Netflix and more than likely they'll bring it to everyone else in good time. The problem with being first and Netflix is they're the ones stuck trying to build the database and developing relationships with folks like Comcast, who would love for you to roll over and die any day now, to keep that database up-to-date enough to please the content gods.
It's a super shitty situation that Netflix is being placed in and Netflix is deploying a really brain dead way of trying to weasel out of this rock and hard place. Geez, I hate the way all this crap goes down because they all are acting like stupid five year olds.
I tend to favor this explanation as to why robot overlords won't kill us. More than likely machines of infinite wisdom just wouldn't bother since we do a pretty good job at the killing humans part. If anything an intelligent AI would ensure a Trump presidency and then fake some emails from Putin of the yo mama kind.
So is that what we call security through obscurity? Hey maybe Google can market that. "Google+ so unused, no one cares to hack your account."
That's exactly how I read it. All the excuses giving are weak at best. Microsoft doesn't want to invest the time and money. But figures, Microsoft's products that are non-office are mostly turning into trash.
You are exactly correct. Distros will have the final say in conf defaults. I don't see many holding onto the yes value for server branded versions of their distros, way too much breakage. For desktop and workstation, maybe, we will have to see. But seriously, this whole thing is a massive overreaction to a value that can be changed in a text editor in less than two seconds. But of course we all know that any systemd news instantly makes front page because of the massive knee jerk Slashdot has for systemd.
but for anybody doing any real work a thin client laptop is completely inadequate
I beg to differ. We have hundreds of Chromebooks deployed that talk to our warehouse management system. They process orders, take mail from clients, move product onto trucks, print VICS bill of ladings, are able to access their dashboards, and so forth. I would say all of that is real work. I get what you are saying and I don't disagree on the finer points like wanting to power through spreadsheets, manage a workflow for 100s of photos, do 3d rendering, etc... But Chromebooks do actually do work. Our warehouses are not the only place where this happens, we've been to some of our customer's manufacturing sites and they use Chromebooks to interact with the SCADA, enter in lab results from QA, and so on. Again, your argument isn't lost here, but what I am saying is that there is still lots of work to be done with thin clients and Chromebooks fit the bill quite nicely.
I had modpoints but I found out that commenting prevents me from using them, I'd still upvote you because you don't have a completely wrong argument, but it's an incomplete argument at best.
I've been writing software for decades
I'm the new RPGLE programmer in an AS400 shop and I'm surrounded by developers like you. Long story short, the 20+ year old code base is crap, none of the neck breads know what the hell is going on in the system and then blame it on bad data. Everything in the system from a user's perspective is confusing. And after a few years of using the system these folks wrote, our clients scream for SAP or RedPrairie. And these folks keep telling themselves, "They don't know what they're missing! We can roll out changes in days not months! They'll be sorry!" All the while I sit there and see our company bleeding money out because people like you think you can do no wrong and are artist and the code you write is somehow magical.
I'm not saying unit test and agile development fix bad programmers, but what I am saying is the free roam model of programming leads to a lot of crap and loss of money. And the self righteous nature means they'll never understand why our clients go elsewhere and never return. It just is so frustrating to work with people like you because you all believe that you can do no wrong. People want software that works. Sometimes that means unit testing, sometimes it doesn't, but if just go around yelling, code is art and the users exist only to ruin it! You're just blowing your company's money out the window. Just bloody hell, and you wonder why they keep outsourcing? Well just look in the mirror one day, there you go. Please never work within a 500 mile radius of Atlanta.
I'll take my troll mod now. For this person it was worth it. And trust me bud, I know that everything I've said has fallen on deaf ears.
Well, you HAD more mod points, but they are in some binary log format, and good luck finding them.
Sigh. I get it no one likes systemd, blah blah. But believe it or not as time has moved on, the binary logs are quite resistant and the format is fairly simple in nature. Likewise, most emergency boots now include journalctl. A simple journalctl --file some_log_file will allow you to browse ad-hoc any file you toss as it so long as it is uncompressed (which as an aside, if you compressed syslog you'd be no better at this point) Even the ones that journalctl --verify says are corrupt. The corruption most of the time post version 205 is that an index was not written. And even if that's not the case, you can force it to display what it can read.
I think the binary argument is a hollow argument at this point. The logs are pretty good at not becoming corrupt and tools are pretty much included now in most recovery tool sets. I see it as no different as say when a PostgreSQL database becomes corrupt. And if you really just hate the idea of binary, you can configure journald to use syslog, and no that doesn't require a recompile.
If you want my arguments of anti-systemd it would be the team that develops it is one of the worse teams to work with and the amount of scope creep is frightening. I think we can all agree that those two things pose the most headache to systemd than this notion of "oh the files are in binary, you boned brah!" Is systemd an ideal solution, nope. But as much as everyone tried, upstart and the like of init replacements were going nowhere fast. At some point, the haters are going to have to realize, they're still working on systemd and they are still making changes to make the tools better and the formats more resilient. Does that mean there will be 0 corruption, no. But you do have to realize that the project is still being actively maintained and they are addressing or have addressed many concerns the enterprise customers have had with it. There's real money being toss at the project to work things that people don't like out of it.
TL;DR - I'm not a huge fan of systemd mostly because of the crazy scope creep, but c'mon the binary argument is so behind us now.
even if they did care, what are they gonna do -- vote for Hillary instead?!
Exactly this! Trump knows now he can just middle finger all the folks that bought the outlandish act. He's now the GOP guy and there's nothing that can be done about it. The guy is so all over the place I wouldn't put it past him to just start saying crap like, "Oh, wal!l? Nah, that's just a good idea but we're not really going to do that." In this guy's mind all those promises made are gone since that phase of the election is over, then only thing he needs to do is promise his way to a Clinton defeat, what that costs him, he could not care less.
They're not entitled to smartphones. Why not take them away?
And then what? Okay so you've taken the phone away, it is not like they are just going to say, "Oh gee, my phone is gone, I guess I'll do things that I don't normally do." It's like people who yell, "Oh just take food stamps away and people will magically get jobs." People just don't magically change overnight and just simply taking a phone away for any short length of time isn't fixing a perceived problem. Allow them to use it for only an hour a day? That's not going to fix jack all that does is make the whole effort an exercise in futility.
What needs to be done, is to teach a level of responsibility that is required to use these devices. You know how you have to teach a kid to drive like a sane human being? And how that just doesn't happen overnight? Yeah, it's like that. Except we've had cars for quite some time now so we're all pretty on the up and up about what responsible "is". Not so much for phones (we are getting there though). What's the responsible level? Using the phone only to answer calls? Allow at least thirty minutes outside? There's not even a rough outline as to what "responsible" is for phone usage, the only thing people can squarely lay their fingers on is what ISN'T responsible. Like don't use it while watching a movie, don't use it while driving, get out of the house every once and awhile (how often being highly subjective) And so on.
So all of that said, we're still in an infant stage of smartphones and yeah, we're going to be complete morons when it comes to them, congrats CNN for pointing out the blindingly obvious about the human condition. But arbitrarily saying, "Oh just take them away" is also NOT going to solve jack crap. We're going to have to develop through trail and error what we think is best and that's going to take a lot of time to eventually figure that out. And that is the reason "just take them away" does not work, it arguably runs counter to everything we know that might actually work. We're just going to have to grin and bear it and work though this as painful as that sounds.
Which brings me more to the point of...
If your teens would prefer gaming indoors, alone, as opposed to going out to the movies, meeting friends for burgers or any of the other ways that teens build camaraderie, you may have a problem.
Building friends and have a close network of peers is clearly a more favorable position than the opposite. However, the thing I have a problem with is the idea that we still need to go out to the movies or get burgers or any of that other crap to build those things. The methods for how people have met, developed friendship, and created long lasting bonds has always evolved. Note how we don't usually go out on fox hunts with hounds and horseback nonsense to get our monthly get together in. Or how we have a lot fewer formal balls. Etc. We change how we do these things as time marches forward. Am I saying that Facebook is a perfect replacement? Not By A Long Shot. Are we too entrenched into phones? Yeah, more than likely. But saying that the way to counter all of that is to just put the phone down and ignore that the last 30 years happened is just silly. We don't have the answer to how to bring society out of the zombie inducing smartphone era, but I assure you, we're going to have to get use to the idea that the answer very well might include the smartphone in some sort of fashion. Better or worse we've got this new thing and it isn't leaving anytime soon.
So TL;DR the answer to "Why not take them away?" Because it won't work. That's just not how humans operate. For better or worse we're going to have to slowly and painfully figure this crap out and society as a whole will slowly evolve the answers. CNN's piece is so infuriating because it is devoid of anyone talking about actual solutions. It just keeps repeating over and over, "this is a problem, this is a prob
Hell no. It's restricted airspace. Drone strikes me while I'm up in the air I'll be coming after the asshole with a lead pipe. I don't care what what "minor" damage it may or may not do, it's not your airspace, stay the hell out of it or learn to join the airspace in a controlled manner. This kind of crap is like trying to equate bicycles just being wherever the hell they feel like on the road. If drones want to be in a controlled space then they can become more regulated, otherwise stay out there in BFE for all I care and stay out of the airports, why are drone ops not happy with what they already have, why do they need to keep trying to push buttons?
You forgot SystemD and how Linux has gone to shit recently, at least for what I've heard from Slashdot.
Rep. Blackburn is the worst. She's in the district to the west of me and I hate everything her stupid mouth says that ruins every other county here in Tennessee, but just as well, she's from Williamson County and of course, they think they rule the whole flipping state. With the majority of money in the state of Tennessee locked in that single county, they basically sit there and dictate the state of affairs here in Tennessee. It's no surprise that Blackburn is up there spouting off crap to make every other county in this state pure shit. Bloody hell I hate that county, I hate that some stuck up shit heads basically dictate everything that goes on in this state. I wish they would fix our roads, I wish they would fix our hospitals, but apparently I live in the wrong county to be able to vote any of that from happening and I'll never make enough money in three lifetimes to be able to move to the correct county. There are honest to goodness good folks and I know the south gets a lot of bad press, but there are good people here, but we just have so fucking little so very little in our lives. Internet is just one thing but it's everything, it every fucking thing. And I'm sorry I'm cussing but it's just so flipping bad and I want us to be so great and we could be that if it wasn't for people like Rep. Blackburn. From Memphis to Knoxville people cruse her, but we've got no power to unseat her and apparently that's just the way it is.
Just because there is a new toy that is out, that happens to have the name of a controversial military device it becomes a major threat.
First, before I get mauled, I'm not entirely crazy about this new proposal. Under a particular altitude and as a hobby I think we should leave unregulated, that said... The drone market is filling up. Drones have way more people in it than the model rocket and RC Airplane markets and I would dare say combined. Drones are also a lot more industrious than say the model rocket or RC plane. Drones are being used for photography, to move goods, be the ultra creeper you've always wanted to be, traffic reports, and so on which are all way more than what the model rocket and RC plane market have ever done.
So considering that the drone market has been able to do all of that and the others are a no go, yeah I can see why the FAA feels there is a need to regulated it. Now that's not to say the others can't do that, it just to say that they haven't, if and when they do, then I'm pretty sure they'll start regulating that as well. But let's be very clear that this comment isn't a voice of support or disdain at the regulation. It's that you can't very easily compare model rockets, RC planes, and what have you with the drone market simply because they are vastly different markets. People have found drones to be really useful and have started creating a lot of points where they intersect with everyday life. The same can't be said for those other markets.
For those who like rigorous formulae on why anyone does anything, I would say (and simply my opinion) that the FAA acts when a particular class of aircraft is used in X number of applications that has Y number of general public using those applications and there are Z number of opportunities to purchase that class of aircraft. (I know really rough formula there, I don't espouse to know what goes on inside the FAA's head) However this rough formula would say that as any of those values X, Y, or Z increases, the likelihood that there will be regulation increases proportionally. Drones are "X" used in numerous applications, "Y" are criss crossing the general public a lot, "Z" you can buy them pretty much everywhere. I'm pretty sure the same could have been said about bi-planes in the early days of aviation.
Again, I'm speculating here as to the logic because it would be wrong for us just to assume, "Hey I'm government and I just want to regulate anything and everything I can possibly." If that was truly the case one would think we'd have a modern Stamp Act. However, considering that we are talking about a public entity, we could forgo the speculation and render my entire comment useless and just simply write them an email asking, "Hey what particular factors does your agency feel led to the regulation of drones and not something like RC airplanes or model rockets?" Again, this just my two cents, I don't condone or condemn this new regulation, just speaking purely out of the these things you talked about model rockets and RC planes != drone market and for better reasons than it's named after the thing we use to murder (don't get me started on that) people around the world with.
To quote someone at some point, "It's not about what we can think of now, but what someone down the line will think up of later." But that aside, I can think of a few, though I can't specifically speak about the marketability of these.
LEO could be a staging point or a point of operation for energy production. Solar panels in space do collect more energy than those on Earth. The caveat being transmission from LEO or higher to ground.
Communications and all that fun jazz come to mind as well. While LEO may just be the staging point in global communications, cheap and less government entangled LEO could be the impetus to drive this industry. It's kind of a hit or miss, I won't lie. But companies seem to be all gung-ho when there is less red-tape involved.
Tourism as you pointed out. Let us not forget the almighty power of tourism.
Trash collection, if you can make a market out of it... Let's face it trash in space is a literal mess. Imagine some young hipster type pitching the idea of LEO clean up. Few might bite, but it still could generate some cash for someone.
Going out further. LEO could become a pretty busy place if it's a little more well kept and there are several services for getting your payload up there. That could include anyone wanting to build a company on go outside of LEO (those folks that want to mine the asteroid belt, come to mind).
However, I'll say that it is a bit hard to think of what value opening up LEO for the public would provide. But I would argue that the value is most definitely a non-zero value. So I hope my spattering of ideas provides some level of creativity but I'd side with you on the big shoulder shrug on what *exactly* it could provide.
Please $5400 of that $400 is the filing fee. This guy is incredibly lucky. $5400 in a copyright case is basically $0 for the actual IP holder, since the majority of that left over $5000 will be going to the lawyers. If anything, this is what a slap on the wrist looks like. Copyright cases can quickly escalate into six digits given enough lawyer. Anyone who believes that a paltry $5k is worthy of some massive corp rage is totally missing the whole point that tons of other folks who have cried for fair copyright have been trying to make. $5k is more than a fair amount for clear infringement.
I too lament the way C++ does exceptions versus how Java handles then. That said, you bring a good point. I've seen new guys in the shop coming from a Java background struggling to completely wrap their heads around RAII. Finally in Java is the typical source for the struggle.
Agreed, however some of us inherit the problems and do our best to convince the uppers to allocate time to clean things up. Let's not forget that there are a whole slew of Lennart Poettering wannabes out there that have everything to prove using some of the most horrible coding styles that could ever exist.
A few things out of the way like watering and what not, and yeah this is basically artificial photosynthesis. We do it better than trees, but we're not so good at it that it could become a real contender for extracting fuel from ground. The stuff in the earth has had a few million years head start.
RPG ILE, CL ILE business logic, C++ ILE for controllers, and a front end in Delphi that calls node.js ends on the 400. Yeap, we're slowly moving everything into a EGL / modern RPG backend and totally web frontend. Can't convert a 30 year old base overnight.
From the document, the major rationale for the expected price drop would be from an abundant supply of product. Not due to some new process that makes the product cheaper to build. So a lot of this is educated guessing. One that there are lot of new production coming on line for batteries. That's a true statement. Two, all of these new players will create a vast supply of batteries. That's a logical outcome that's typically true but not always. Three, this huge supply will drive prices down. Again that's the typical market assumption but it's not always a sure thing. So it is a one thing leads to another kind of paper. I don't disagree with some of the assumptions made, and the numbers seem conservative enough to not be in the realm of outlandish. So a pretty safe paper in terms of speculation, but not exactly hard truth so take with usual grain of salt here.
Not hating on your comment but I'm going to toss out less and sass/sass script. Additionally CSS does support matching syntax, mathematic operations like every even/odd/nth selection, and has a pretty diverse query notation. So that said, not saying that qualifies it as whatever someone says is a "programming" language, but CSS has come quite a way from what a lot of people think CSS does. So just so we're clear, I'm not disagreeing with you here, just augmenting the idea of CSS here.