Hey, that's like traffic signals where I've live -- they're specifically timed to ensure that you consume as much gas as possible, while sitting in traffic for the maximum amount of time every day!
Finally... the "censorship" tag is applied in a 100% appropriate context, and not because a corporation refuses to publish apps or something...
Yes, this is probably a troll - but the sentiment is a valid one. It's frustrating how often people get up in arms about "censorship" from various corporations where they sign up for/agree to the terms in the first place -- kind of waters down the meaning of the term.
So? The point is that is not hidden you can still have some kind of feedback on how much CPU % the application+GUI is using. Knowing how much is the application logic and how much is GUI would more difficult however, but not impossible, by using a profiler.
That's not the point I was trying to make at all. My point is pretty simple: to someone who doesn't understand how a given windowing system works, it will appear that X is very CPU hungry because they can see it using CPU while the application sits "idle" -- compared to Windows, where the application is using CPU without any indication that it's specifically performing a windowing operation. In reality, the GUI work on linux is just offloaded from the application to the windowing system - which happens to be a separate executable. But still, the perception remains: "X" is consuming CPU while on windows, there is no counterpart.
Obviously if you understand how the different windowing systems work, there's no need for confusion, as the specifics can certainly be quantified...
I had forgotten that I had started using Grub 2 at some point. The upgrade instructions did mention that, I think, update-grub had to be run manually.
I had similar issues, so happily include myself in the "stupid user" category. It's a tough blow, really, since I have such a high opinion of myself...
While some GUI activity is kernel level, most of it is in user-space. In my own experience, I don't see that the system process is consuming CPU during heavy GUI painting operations - it always has been the application.
One wonders how much of this stuff is self-inflicted in some fashion or another.
Rule 1: blame the user.
I say this only 2/3rds jokingly. It's a problem in that it's often the first reaction we'll have upon reading something like this -- but there's also often a/reason/ it's the first reaction.
That being said, it's been long established that most people don't read prompts in software. Perhaps (in addition to realizing the users are stupid for not reading) we should design with that limitation in mind, so that it does the "right thing" by default for stupid users.
You people posting "not on my mac", "no on linux", "not on solaris", "not on bsd", and "not my toaster running running minix" are missing the real issue with the parent post.
I've been running windows for longer than I want to think about (yeah, I'm a glutton) without AV. A separate firewall , a couple of basic precautions, and not running shit you aren't 100% certain of is the only antivirus you need. This applies on any system, it really doesn't matter what the OS is.
If you insist on clicking to see the bunny, or running downloaded software from un-verifiable sources... then no AV will protect you for long.
So yeah - "no news". But not because "using any computer without AV is asking for what they get", but because when you download and run a virus yourself, you get what you deserve -- whining that the OS isn't protecting you (as done in the article) is just stupid. Use your brain and don't expect the OS (or AV) to think for you.
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one - AV free since the 80s. Posts like GP just piss me off - that's the kind of attitude that ensures users will never get educated on how they can user their computers in relative safely. (Okay, the other part of the equation is that it's just easier for most people to have AV do their thinking for them... )
This is one time the law and its application are way out of line. That's equipment you pay for and service you pay for. It's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities. I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer, then where's their accountability?
Why should they have accountability? Let's use that old "if I left my door unlocked does that mean you can take anything you want?" argument. If you walk in and take (modify the modem for better service than you're paying for), you're stealing services by any accepted definition of theft. It's not their responsibility to lock the front door, it's your responsibility not to walk through it.
If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing, I'd still think it was bull****. As it is, when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches, contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed, terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time? Some joker modifying cable modems. You gotta be f'ing kidding me.
Apples and oranges, and completely irrelevant to the discussion. The government, with its tens of thousands of Righteous Enforcers, can multitask.
Bad analogy. He has a product that he's selling (hacked modems) that can be used for only one conceivable purpose. There might be a case for saying "well, it was for education" -- but that's undermined when he's advertising them as getting around cable co restrictions...
The problem is that when monitoring processes, people can "see" X11 using CPU cycles, whereas in Windows they only "see" the application doing. It's six of one, half dozen of the other -- but it makes it look like X11 is CPU-resource intensive. In reality, the same cycles are used for windows based apps (perhaps more? I certainly don't know...), but they look like the app using the CPU which is somehow more expected.
Actually if you look at those numbers, you do see some drops in '05 and '08, and '09 will be close.
That aside, and germane to the TFA -- I've stopped going to movies not because of the Internet, or piracy, or anything else . It's pretty simple -- when you consistently lower the quality of the movies, raise the prices (where are the avg ticket prices coming from in that chart? haven't seen it that low except for matinee), reduce the quantity of food while raising the price, and then to add insult to injury force me to watch fucking commercials at the beginning of every movie.... I give up. It's no longer worth my time or money. (Actual commercials -- not previews which I've never minded... but coke/nike/tbs/tnt/sprint/at&t/et al ). I'll wait for video so that I can rent it; or for cable if it's not worth that... or just not watch it if it looked really bad.
Recorded shows increase viewership? Like pirated movies increase movie ticket sales? Like pirated music increases digital music sales?
Except in one case, there are reliable sources with real numbers to back them up (ie actual monitoring of habits producing quantifiable data), while in the other you get only made up statistics to support one perspective or the other -- I'll let you pick which one is which;)
It's easy to do if you're not focusing on the TV. I often half-pay-attention to shows while working on my laptop. Sometimes I skip the commercials -- if I happen to glance up, but most often only when they get loud or obnoxious enough to actually draw attention to themselves.
There are also commercials that have amusement value (the first time anyway) and so I'll give them one watch. (the mac/pc commercials come to mind, though I'll never buy a mac; and the comcast 'slowskies' are stupid enough to be funny even though I'm already a comcast customer based on lack of choice.)
And even if I'm completely wrong -- do you really have expectation that only you know what you do on the Internet? That seems a bit naive - even if law were passed that guaranteed that privacy, I/still/ wouldn't believe that I had it. There are far too many points at which such information could be intercepted.
And are you also your own ISP or does your email pass through someone else's routers? Hope you don't mind them recording packets and saving every DNS lookup and every website you visit as part of the "ordinary course of doing business".
Except that really - they don't. How many gigabytes of packets headers get routed through their servers every hour,.not to mention the actual payload size? There's no storage medium that exists that they wouldn't fill up too quickly - and as such medium evolves, our transfer needs increase.
Running your own email server is sufficient protection. While it's reasonable to assume that they might log the web sites you visit (though if you're not using their proxy, much less likely), the content of what you upload, download, send, and receive is pretty unlikely unless they specifically target individual users to monitor.
And even if I'm completely wrong -- do you really have expectation that only you know what you do on the Internet? That seems a bit naive - even if law were passed that guaranteed that privacy, I/still/ wouldn't believe that I had it. There are far too many points at which such information could be intercepted.
I can't help it, so bear with me. I think that phrase doesn't mean quite fit in as you think it does:
evidence that the current "blogger's revolution" referenced recently here on slashdot will see our modern media overturned in short shrift.
1 : barely adequate time for confession before execution
2 a : little or no attention or consideration b : quick work —usually used in the phrase make short shrift of
Perhaps the phrase you wanted was "in short order"? Can't put my finger on it, but using that phrase as indirect object just seems incorrect...
It's modded troll because the truth is that while all maps are not stored on the unit, maps for the current route are cached locally. As long as you have service when you start driving and you don't go too far out of your way, you'll be fine.
Google Maps for mobile requires an active data connection at all times. Before you download it, we recommend that you contact your mobile service provider to find out more about the data plans it offers. An unlimited data plan is strongly recommended as continuous Maps usage will use a lot of data.
With the App Store, you're "locked-in". See the difference?
No. Because there are many other devices out there that aren't the iPhone. In the same way that there are many other photo services. You have a choice that you make when you purchase your phone. If you choose iPhone, then you also choose and accept these restrictions. It's perfectly within the company's rights to impose them, if you sign the dotted line to accept them.
Did I buy the device or didn't I? Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.
Is that their fault, or yours for not learning what you were getting before you got it? Me, I'd just go with "don't buy it in the first place" -- there's nothing I need in the app store. Some things I might want, but certainly not enough to lay down that much cash for a restricted device. If I did cave in and buy it, I sure as hell wouldn't blame anyone for the consequences of my decision except me.
For your *cough* great car example, it's more like buying a car and signing an agreement up front that only manufacturer-approved parts may be used in your car, or else you void the warranty.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, that's like traffic signals where I've live -- they're specifically timed to ensure that you consume as much gas as possible, while sitting in traffic for the maximum amount of time every day!
Yes, this is probably a troll - but the sentiment is a valid one. It's frustrating how often people get up in arms about "censorship" from various corporations where they sign up for/agree to the terms in the first place -- kind of waters down the meaning of the term.
So? The point is that is not hidden you can still have some kind of feedback on how much CPU % the application+GUI is using. Knowing how much is the application logic and how much is GUI would more difficult however, but not impossible, by using a profiler.
That's not the point I was trying to make at all. My point is pretty simple: to someone who doesn't understand how a given windowing system works, it will appear that X is very CPU hungry because they can see it using CPU while the application sits "idle" -- compared to Windows, where the application is using CPU without any indication that it's specifically performing a windowing operation. In reality, the GUI work on linux is just offloaded from the application to the windowing system - which happens to be a separate executable. But still, the perception remains: "X" is consuming CPU while on windows, there is no counterpart.
Obviously if you understand how the different windowing systems work, there's no need for confusion, as the specifics can certainly be quantified...
Nobody controls their behavior any more than animals. In order to fit in we have to behave as though we want to fit in, it's simple feedback.
In other words, in order fit in we control our behavior so that we fit in?
I had forgotten that I had started using Grub 2 at some point. The upgrade instructions did mention that, I think, update-grub had to be run manually.
I had similar issues, so happily include myself in the "stupid user" category. It's a tough blow, really, since I have such a high opinion of myself...
While some GUI activity is kernel level, most of it is in user-space. In my own experience, I don't see that the system process is consuming CPU during heavy GUI painting operations - it always has been the application.
One wonders how much of this stuff is self-inflicted in some fashion or another.
Rule 1: blame the user.
I say this only 2/3rds jokingly. It's a problem in that it's often the first reaction we'll have upon reading something like this -- but there's also often a /reason/ it's the first reaction.
That being said, it's been long established that most people don't read prompts in software. Perhaps (in addition to realizing the users are stupid for not reading) we should design with that limitation in mind, so that it does the "right thing" by default for stupid users.
I've been running windows for longer than I want to think about (yeah, I'm a glutton) without AV. A separate firewall , a couple of basic precautions, and not running shit you aren't 100% certain of is the only antivirus you need. This applies on any system, it really doesn't matter what the OS is.
If you insist on clicking to see the bunny, or running downloaded software from un-verifiable sources... then no AV will protect you for long.
So yeah - "no news". But not because "using any computer without AV is asking for what they get", but because when you download and run a virus yourself, you get what you deserve -- whining that the OS isn't protecting you (as done in the article) is just stupid. Use your brain and don't expect the OS (or AV) to think for you.
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one - AV free since the 80s. Posts like GP just piss me off - that's the kind of attitude that ensures users will never get educated on how they can user their computers in relative safely. (Okay, the other part of the equation is that it's just easier for most people to have AV do their thinking for them... )
You assume you'd survive with an attitude like that. I wouldn't want to bet on that one.
This is one time the law and its application are way out of line. That's equipment you pay for and service you pay for. It's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities. I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer, then where's their accountability?
Why should they have accountability? Let's use that old "if I left my door unlocked does that mean you can take anything you want?" argument. If you walk in and take (modify the modem for better service than you're paying for), you're stealing services by any accepted definition of theft. It's not their responsibility to lock the front door, it's your responsibility not to walk through it.
If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing, I'd still think it was bull****. As it is, when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches, contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed, terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time? Some joker modifying cable modems. You gotta be f'ing kidding me.
Apples and oranges, and completely irrelevant to the discussion. The government, with its tens of thousands of Righteous Enforcers, can multitask.
Bad analogy. He has a product that he's selling (hacked modems) that can be used for only one conceivable purpose. There might be a case for saying "well, it was for education" -- but that's undermined when he's advertising them as getting around cable co restrictions...
The problem is that when monitoring processes, people can "see" X11 using CPU cycles, whereas in Windows they only "see" the application doing. It's six of one, half dozen of the other -- but it makes it look like X11 is CPU-resource intensive. In reality, the same cycles are used for windows based apps (perhaps more? I certainly don't know...), but they look like the app using the CPU which is somehow more expected.
That aside, and germane to the TFA -- I've stopped going to movies not because of the Internet, or piracy, or anything else . It's pretty simple -- when you consistently lower the quality of the movies, raise the prices (where are the avg ticket prices coming from in that chart? haven't seen it that low except for matinee), reduce the quantity of food while raising the price, and then to add insult to injury force me to watch fucking commercials at the beginning of every movie.... I give up. It's no longer worth my time or money. (Actual commercials -- not previews which I've never minded... but coke/nike/tbs/tnt/sprint/at&t/et al ). I'll wait for video so that I can rent it; or for cable if it's not worth that... or just not watch it if it looked really bad.
Recorded shows increase viewership? Like pirated movies increase movie ticket sales? Like pirated music increases digital music sales?
Except in one case, there are reliable sources with real numbers to back them up (ie actual monitoring of habits producing quantifiable data), while in the other you get only made up statistics to support one perspective or the other -- I'll let you pick which one is which ;)
There are also commercials that have amusement value (the first time anyway) and so I'll give them one watch. (the mac/pc commercials come to mind, though I'll never buy a mac; and the comcast 'slowskies' are stupid enough to be funny even though I'm already a comcast customer based on lack of choice.)
And even if I'm completely wrong -- do you really have expectation that only you know what you do on the Internet? That seems a bit naive - even if law were passed that guaranteed that privacy, I /still/ wouldn't believe that I had it. There are far too many points at which such information could be intercepted.
And are you also your own ISP or does your email pass through someone else's routers? Hope you don't mind them recording packets and saving every DNS lookup and every website you visit as part of the "ordinary course of doing business".
Except that really - they don't. How many gigabytes of packets headers get routed through their servers every hour,.not to mention the actual payload size? There's no storage medium that exists that they wouldn't fill up too quickly - and as such medium evolves, our transfer needs increase.
Running your own email server is sufficient protection. While it's reasonable to assume that they might log the web sites you visit (though if you're not using their proxy, much less likely), the content of what you upload, download, send, and receive is pretty unlikely unless they specifically target individual users to monitor.
And even if I'm completely wrong -- do you really have expectation that only you know what you do on the Internet? That seems a bit naive - even if law were passed that guaranteed that privacy, I /still/ wouldn't believe that I had it. There are far too many points at which such information could be intercepted.
evidence that the current "blogger's revolution" referenced recently here on slashdot will see our modern media overturned in short shrift.
1 : barely adequate time for confession before execution 2 a : little or no attention or consideration b : quick work —usually used in the phrase make short shrift of
Perhaps the phrase you wanted was "in short order"? Can't put my finger on it, but using that phrase as indirect object just seems incorrect...
Cory Doctorow makes a decent living by restating the obvious.
Argue all you want, but you can't deny that such malware is a whole lot less likely to download and install itself on a Unix-based system.
? Did they even put up a page where you can check yourself or your network?
Yes
It's modded troll because the truth is that while all maps are not stored on the unit, maps for the current route are cached locally. As long as you have service when you start driving and you don't go too far out of your way, you'll be fine.
Except that's not what google says:
Google Maps for mobile requires an active data connection at all times. Before you download it, we recommend that you contact your mobile service provider to find out more about the data plans it offers. An unlimited data plan is strongly recommended as continuous Maps usage will use a lot of data.
With the App Store, you're "locked-in". See the difference?
No. Because there are many other devices out there that aren't the iPhone. In the same way that there are many other photo services. You have a choice that you make when you purchase your phone. If you choose iPhone, then you also choose and accept these restrictions. It's perfectly within the company's rights to impose them, if you sign the dotted line to accept them.
Did I buy the device or didn't I? Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.
Is that their fault, or yours for not learning what you were getting before you got it? Me, I'd just go with "don't buy it in the first place" -- there's nothing I need in the app store. Some things I might want, but certainly not enough to lay down that much cash for a restricted device. If I did cave in and buy it, I sure as hell wouldn't blame anyone for the consequences of my decision except me.
For your *cough* great car example, it's more like buying a car and signing an agreement up front that only manufacturer-approved parts may be used in your car, or else you void the warranty.