Yeah except that wasn't it. I even re-installed once to make sure I had not missed an option. It installed itself to a hidden temp directory that is not accessible under a different user account, and that's frankly unacceptable behavior even if I DID have the wrong box checked.
I have noticed google products in general seem to have very, very odd ideas about installation behavior. Just try to get get google earth to install to d: for instance. It's very odd for such a supposedly tech-savvy company to produce such bizarrely broken tech.
I tried chrome some time back. After installing it I switched user accounts and it was gone. Silly thing had installed in %appdata% or something like it thought it was Reveton. Even if I liked it (in my short experience it seemed a bit creepy) I would not find it reasonable to have to spend all day installing the same program over and over again just to have access to it across user accounts.
1.) Simply not true, as another poster already pointed out adequately. 2.) Even if it were true, the legitimate successor government which has standing to invoke that treaty was just deposed in a putsch and it's clear that no one with standing to invoke that treaty has any desire to do so. (The fact that the US has been exposed standing behind that Putsch just makes it even less legitimate.)
Face it this is just a ginned up confrontation that does not need to be happening. The US is in such a dominant position today that our politicians feel free to wander around the world picking fights to boost their poll numbers.
Read the law instead of this summary and you will find it does not actually apply. Section 215 (assuming it's Constitutional for the sake of argument) only permits seizure of records which are relevant to an investigation. It does not authorize seizing all records and storing them just in case an investigation might some day come up where they are relevant.
The author of the Patriot Act agrees: http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=341673
So does the federal Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1008957-final-report.html
Even the FISA "court" which has no function but to provide a fig leaf for these activities found that the program violated the Constitution as well as other laws over and over again, though their ruling was classified and only leaked out years later: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/775818/fisc-opinion-unconstitutional-surveillance-0.pdf
So sure, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and it should be repealed, but what is going on today goes far beyond it and not actually authorized under it.
"The patriot act is coming for renewal in 2015. All congress has to do is not re-authorize it."
This is almost completely irrelevant. The Patriot Act does not authorize mass surveillance to begin with, so it seems unlikely its repeal would result in any change in behavior.
So you are saying Congress needs to authorize the current activities legislatively, before Obama would feel he had authority to override them by executive order? So as long as the activities are completely illegal he's powerless to stop them, but if they got a legislative fig-leaf then he could stand up to the Republicans by defying them?
You just might have a future at the office of White House Counsel young man!
Indeed, as unsatisfying as it is, the answer is that the question is wrong.
A windows software firewall is not the same thing as a standard firewall, it's a rather specialized bit of software that, unlike normal firewalls, does NOT just look at the packets and judge them for themselves. Instead, it keeps track of which *programs* on the machine are allowed to connect and how. On Windows, it's needed, and can be very useful i.e. even if the trojan gets installed using a drive-by exploit, it still cant call home (and when it tries, you get a clue that it is present.)
On *nix systems, I am not saying something similar could not be made, and found useful. But the need is certainly much less. You do not really need a software firewall on a system where programs cannot run without user intervention.
Yes, but when depends on the requirements of the games.
If they are games that can be coaxed into running on the server version of XP ("Windows Server 2003") then they should be working in the 1.0 release. Otherwise you would be lating for a later release.
If everyone that prefers it would just break out the checkbook and donate to ReactOS, you could have a free clone with no artificial end-of-life. As much demand as there obviously is for this, you would think the project would have received more support.
I don't need any more reasons to be against gay marriage apart from the looming prospect of gay divorce. If I'm going to break up with my boyfriend, I don't want to have to pay a price higher than a few broken vases and a call to 911. As far as I'm concerned, if ever there was an argument for the existence of "homophobia," then this is it: "gay marriage" is the revenge of the heterosexuals, who resent and hate us for our gay fun-filled lives and advanced powers of color-coordination. It's a nefarious plot to make us all as boring and unbearable as Andrew Sullivan, and I, for one, will have none of it." -Justin Raimondo
There are really two different issues here, one is entirely around the meaning of the word marriage and the other has to do with rights taken away and then handed back as privileges - with strings attached.
The latter is easier to solve in theory - just keep our rights to start with. You may pay taxes and mandatory fees for benefits at work - and then be told you must be in a state-blessed marriage in order to collect those benefits. This is obviously unfair and wrong. But this could be straightened out relatively simply, by not mandating these arrangements in the first place. There is no reason for the system to take money out of your paycheck only to hand it back if and when you file the forms and show the state blessing - it's entirely unnecessary. You should be allowed to keep your money and buy what you want with it, what suits your needs, it should not be a situation where you have all these people, this bureaucracy, all up in your business all the time.
The first issue is less tractable, I fear people will still be having that argument generations hence. But the wonderful thing is, if you solve the second issue as I have suggested, the first issue just becomes unimportant. Sure, people will disagree heatedly but with the government no longer involved, defining who is right and who is wrong, robbing Peter to pay Paul's bills, there is no longer any urgency to the argument, no political dimension. No one faces loss of their rights or their livelihood over it. It becomes, as it should be, a discussion for church not a struggle to direct the power of the state against those who disagree with you.
"Also, the initial population should be all female (obvious reasons)."
FFS the initial population CANNOT be all female, for obvious reasons.
"(They may not be happy hatching others eggs but... hey, they've got a new planet to populate!)"
You and others make a huge mistake here, assuming that the colonists individual desires and will can be ignored. They cannot be. The colony will perforce be well beyond any effective control from earth and if the colonists find their instructions unconscionable they will not follow them.
And even if your projection worked otherwise you would still be facing a critical shortage of labor (with child-care requirements alone exceeding the capability of the workforce) long before you can get to a sustainable population.
" I think the point was something more like, "We don't need to worry about genetic diversity if we can just pack embryos." That way, you can staff the spaceship with an appropriate number of people for making the trip and establishing a colony, and then use the embryos once you hit the point of needing genetic diversity. "
Whoosh.
Let's try again. Say you take 150 people to run the ship, and figure to get your 10k population level with these embryos after they arrive. You can incubate them (if you brought the equipment) but then you get 10k squalling infants and only 150 people to provide food shelter education and attention for them for the next decade plus before they start carrying their own weight. It just doesnt work that way.
The best you could do would be to keep a slow but steady trickle of incubations going, no more than the current number of adult colonists can handle in addition to their natural offspring, keeping in mind this is going to be extreme frontier living and they will have plenty to do just to maintaing themselves. So if you are starting at 150 you are delaying the establishment of a viable population by *many* generations. During which time you still have all the disadvantages and risks of a too small too closely related population.
"By the time we have the tech to build a starship we can just ship out as many embryos as we can fit in a freezer. Job done."
Not quite.
The 18 years we spend now may be excessive but even figuring adulthood at 15 those embryos do not just magically hatch out as viable colonists. So while this might be a reasonable side-project to help a little, it's far from "job done."
Another way to cut down on the requirements is to deliberately pick the colonists based on genetics rather than assume a 'random' sample. I am normally against any sort of pseudo-racial quota system on principle, but in this one narrow case it would have a direct and clear justification. If instead of assuming random participants, you assume participants deliberately picked to be as genetically distant from each other as possible, you should be able to reduce the population requirements quite significantly.
Eh, did you even read the thread? The bug reports?
Linus is outspoken and blunt but as long as the subject is not licenses he is also usually right. In this case, doubly so.
Unfortunately what tends to pass for "fresh ideas" these days are the same old bad ideas only expressed less shamefully. Deliberately introducing bugs in your project to force another project to make the changes you want in order to work around them is a very old idea but it's still not a good one.
Thank you for coming out here. The groupthink on this one is strong. As offensive as this gentleman's views on one issue may be, harrassing someone at their place of employment, to the point in this case of actually costing them their job, for their political views is far worse.
I didn't have any respect for the sad dating site involved so I cant say they lost any but I did have a little for Mozilla corporation to say goodbye to.
Please, Mozilla, liquidate. Let people that are competent and want to work on a browser have it. Convert into a PAC so your employees will actually start doing what they are paid for.
"Yes, the net-neutrality principle is going to be very strong, if the Council will approve the same text as the Parliament. However, I don't think this is the most important thing for mankind."
It's certainly better than the alternative.
"What would have happened to the american economy without the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing?"
A market correction, liquidation of bad investments, and restructuring allowing for the economy to really grow again.
Unfortunately the EU equivalent is much more like the Fed than you give them credit for, however.
I think that 'power transfer rate' in an electrical context could only refer to watts. People commonly associate the word volt with the meaning that actually belongs with watt instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah except that wasn't it. I even re-installed once to make sure I had not missed an option. It installed itself to a hidden temp directory that is not accessible under a different user account, and that's frankly unacceptable behavior even if I DID have the wrong box checked.
I have noticed google products in general seem to have very, very odd ideas about installation behavior. Just try to get get google earth to install to d: for instance. It's very odd for such a supposedly tech-savvy company to produce such bizarrely broken tech.
I tried chrome some time back. After installing it I switched user accounts and it was gone. Silly thing had installed in %appdata% or something like it thought it was Reveton. Even if I liked it (in my short experience it seemed a bit creepy) I would not find it reasonable to have to spend all day installing the same program over and over again just to have access to it across user accounts.
So, fixed? Or defective by design?
1.) Simply not true, as another poster already pointed out adequately.
2.) Even if it were true, the legitimate successor government which has standing to invoke that treaty was just deposed in a putsch and it's clear that no one with standing to invoke that treaty has any desire to do so. (The fact that the US has been exposed standing behind that Putsch just makes it even less legitimate.)
Face it this is just a ginned up confrontation that does not need to be happening. The US is in such a dominant position today that our politicians feel free to wander around the world picking fights to boost their poll numbers.
Piraterna should make that an election issue.
But the actual announcement is not among them.
https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20140407.txt
"Yeah, you'll probably found your car has been towed by the city (even if it isn't there - this is a major source of tourism income)"
OK my mind is blown.
Please explain to me how SF can make money by towing the car that I left behind in my home state?
The fees would have to be quite outrageous just to cover their gas!
Read the law instead of this summary and you will find it does not actually apply. Section 215 (assuming it's Constitutional for the sake of argument) only permits seizure of records which are relevant to an investigation. It does not authorize seizing all records and storing them just in case an investigation might some day come up where they are relevant.
The author of the Patriot Act agrees:
http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=341673
So does the federal Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1008957-final-report.html
Even the FISA "court" which has no function but to provide a fig leaf for these activities found that the program violated the Constitution as well as other laws over and over again, though their ruling was classified and only leaked out years later:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/775818/fisc-opinion-unconstitutional-surveillance-0.pdf
So sure, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and it should be repealed, but what is going on today goes far beyond it and not actually authorized under it.
"The patriot act is coming for renewal in 2015. All congress has to do is not re-authorize it."
This is almost completely irrelevant. The Patriot Act does not authorize mass surveillance to begin with, so it seems unlikely its repeal would result in any change in behavior.
So you are saying Congress needs to authorize the current activities legislatively, before Obama would feel he had authority to override them by executive order? So as long as the activities are completely illegal he's powerless to stop them, but if they got a legislative fig-leaf then he could stand up to the Republicans by defying them?
You just might have a future at the office of White House Counsel young man!
Free/Open code is a necessary but not sufficient condition for security.
Indeed, as unsatisfying as it is, the answer is that the question is wrong.
A windows software firewall is not the same thing as a standard firewall, it's a rather specialized bit of software that, unlike normal firewalls, does NOT just look at the packets and judge them for themselves. Instead, it keeps track of which *programs* on the machine are allowed to connect and how. On Windows, it's needed, and can be very useful i.e. even if the trojan gets installed using a drive-by exploit, it still cant call home (and when it tries, you get a clue that it is present.)
On *nix systems, I am not saying something similar could not be made, and found useful. But the need is certainly much less. You do not really need a software firewall on a system where programs cannot run without user intervention.
Yes, but when depends on the requirements of the games.
If they are games that can be coaxed into running on the server version of XP ("Windows Server 2003") then they should be working in the 1.0 release. Otherwise you would be lating for a later release.
http://www.reactos.org/user-faq
XP is a very popular and well-liked OS.
If everyone that prefers it would just break out the checkbook and donate to ReactOS, you could have a free clone with no artificial end-of-life. As much demand as there obviously is for this, you would think the project would have received more support.
It's actually a serious argument:
There are really two different issues here, one is entirely around the meaning of the word marriage and the other has to do with rights taken away and then handed back as privileges - with strings attached.
The latter is easier to solve in theory - just keep our rights to start with. You may pay taxes and mandatory fees for benefits at work - and then be told you must be in a state-blessed marriage in order to collect those benefits. This is obviously unfair and wrong. But this could be straightened out relatively simply, by not mandating these arrangements in the first place. There is no reason for the system to take money out of your paycheck only to hand it back if and when you file the forms and show the state blessing - it's entirely unnecessary. You should be allowed to keep your money and buy what you want with it, what suits your needs, it should not be a situation where you have all these people, this bureaucracy, all up in your business all the time.
The first issue is less tractable, I fear people will still be having that argument generations hence. But the wonderful thing is, if you solve the second issue as I have suggested, the first issue just becomes unimportant. Sure, people will disagree heatedly but with the government no longer involved, defining who is right and who is wrong, robbing Peter to pay Paul's bills, there is no longer any urgency to the argument, no political dimension. No one faces loss of their rights or their livelihood over it. It becomes, as it should be, a discussion for church not a struggle to direct the power of the state against those who disagree with you.
You're right about android. Where you are wrong is thinking iOS is any better.
It's not. It's the same crap at a higher price. With a little extra spit-shine.
"Also, the initial population should be all female (obvious reasons)."
FFS the initial population CANNOT be all female, for obvious reasons.
"(They may not be happy hatching others eggs but... hey, they've got a new planet to populate!)"
You and others make a huge mistake here, assuming that the colonists individual desires and will can be ignored. They cannot be. The colony will perforce be well beyond any effective control from earth and if the colonists find their instructions unconscionable they will not follow them.
And even if your projection worked otherwise you would still be facing a critical shortage of labor (with child-care requirements alone exceeding the capability of the workforce) long before you can get to a sustainable population.
" I think the point was something more like, "We don't need to worry about genetic diversity if we can just pack embryos." That way, you can staff the spaceship with an appropriate number of people for making the trip and establishing a colony, and then use the embryos once you hit the point of needing genetic diversity. "
Whoosh.
Let's try again. Say you take 150 people to run the ship, and figure to get your 10k population level with these embryos after they arrive. You can incubate them (if you brought the equipment) but then you get 10k squalling infants and only 150 people to provide food shelter education and attention for them for the next decade plus before they start carrying their own weight. It just doesnt work that way.
The best you could do would be to keep a slow but steady trickle of incubations going, no more than the current number of adult colonists can handle in addition to their natural offspring, keeping in mind this is going to be extreme frontier living and they will have plenty to do just to maintaing themselves. So if you are starting at 150 you are delaying the establishment of a viable population by *many* generations. During which time you still have all the disadvantages and risks of a too small too closely related population.
"By the time we have the tech to build a starship we can just ship out as many embryos as we can fit in a freezer. Job done."
Not quite.
The 18 years we spend now may be excessive but even figuring adulthood at 15 those embryos do not just magically hatch out as viable colonists. So while this might be a reasonable side-project to help a little, it's far from "job done."
Another way to cut down on the requirements is to deliberately pick the colonists based on genetics rather than assume a 'random' sample. I am normally against any sort of pseudo-racial quota system on principle, but in this one narrow case it would have a direct and clear justification. If instead of assuming random participants, you assume participants deliberately picked to be as genetically distant from each other as possible, you should be able to reduce the population requirements quite significantly.
Eh, did you even read the thread? The bug reports?
Linus is outspoken and blunt but as long as the subject is not licenses he is also usually right. In this case, doubly so.
Unfortunately what tends to pass for "fresh ideas" these days are the same old bad ideas only expressed less shamefully. Deliberately introducing bugs in your project to force another project to make the changes you want in order to work around them is a very old idea but it's still not a good one.
Considering this is a California company, are you freaking kidding me?
Even if it was not clear that the employees as a whole would mutiny if he did, the legal environment they operate in serves as a powerful guarantee.
"They might as well just go ahead and deny all science spending, kill NASA, DOE, NSF and NIH, and call it a day."
Exactly.
"its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance."
Yes, actually, it is.
Most people of adult age should have figured that out by now. Being intolerant to stop intolerance makes no sense at all. It's a sure way to lose.
Thank you for coming out here. The groupthink on this one is strong. As offensive as this gentleman's views on one issue may be, harrassing someone at their place of employment, to the point in this case of actually costing them their job, for their political views is far worse.
I didn't have any respect for the sad dating site involved so I cant say they lost any but I did have a little for Mozilla corporation to say goodbye to.
Please, Mozilla, liquidate. Let people that are competent and want to work on a browser have it. Convert into a PAC so your employees will actually start doing what they are paid for.
"Yes, the net-neutrality principle is going to be very strong, if the Council will approve the same text as the Parliament. However, I don't think this is the most important thing for mankind."
It's certainly better than the alternative.
"What would have happened to the american economy without the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing?"
A market correction, liquidation of bad investments, and restructuring allowing for the economy to really grow again.
Unfortunately the EU equivalent is much more like the Fed than you give them credit for, however.
I think that 'power transfer rate' in an electrical context could only refer to watts. People commonly associate the word volt with the meaning that actually belongs with watt instead.