For the answer on why we don't reveal this information read up on the 1929 bank failures. For the tl;dr crowd: There's a very good reason that we don't say which banks are having problems because they get ran out of business quickly (often within hours) and everyone that didn't make it in time looses their money. It happened in 1929 in the U.S. and it destroyed our economy for a decade.
Most industrialized economies are designed to be ran with continual inflation. Central banks around the world consider 1.5-3.0% annual inflation to be ideal with 2.0-2.5% to be the sweet spot. The only time you hear about inflation is when it gets outside this range. Capitalist(ish) economies usually suffer a near collapse or total collapse when the currency hits 0% inflation or starts to deflate. Because of this, the money you keep always devalues and always will as long as we keep this economic model. I've never understood the rant against the intentional push for inflation that happened after the 2008 recession in the U.S. All that did was return inflation to the "safe" range. Both Bush and Obama supported doing this so it isn't even a Democrat/Republican issue. (Note to all the "gold standard" junkies: This happens with gold and silver too!...and its price is more volatile. Our economy was designed to roughly mimic gold and silver without having to lug it around and have more control over the inflation.)
Now, if you hate the inflation based economic system in general, that's another matter. No, going "back to gold" will not change this. See reason above. Barter was the only real system we had in the past that didn't suffer from this design. I think that there can be better systems but, it would take someone much smarter than me to design one and have it work for a global economy. (We're talking Nobel prize territory here.)
Very true. There's nothing saying they're mutually exclusive. I'm in the U.S. so we have the fully private for-profit prison system here. Dirtiest business since nuclear waste dumping.
More like enshrining the outdated copyright cartels into law with their own legal enforcement powers so they can keep funneling money into political campaigns
And the futile game of whack-a-mole continues. I wonder just how long media companies will take to realize that this is futile? My guess is they'll go out of business first.
I can say, as someone with decent knowledge on the topic that not doing security testing is standard procedure at most companies. Testing costs money and causes delays, something no corporation wants. Until the cost of ignoring the problem exceeds the savings of proactively dealing with it, this will continue to be the case.
I would actually argue that it is at this point. As a hobbyist project as linux was long ago, many forkes were good thing as it gave the general community a lot of options and they could choose their prefered setup and the user was expected to handle any technical and coding issues between the different systems was everybody was at least a tech if not a coder and such solutions were realistically expected. That is not linux today with the exception of gentoo and a few others which you tend not to see in company servers. Linux today is a large product backed by many people and corporations and if you expect to continue to have their support and assistance, you need to work out solutions and find the best one for the majority of stakeholders involved (this does not just mean code quality exclusively though that is a factor) and everyone else to back that decision once it is made or else 3rd party vendors and large companies will find a different solution that doesn't involve linux; hence Windows' continued dominance.
This decision is what happened with RedHat and Debian. The stakeholders evaluated their options and decided, right or wrong, that systemd was the best solution for them. For RedHat, since it is a company rather than a community project, that is the end of it and no amount of complaining by it's online community is going to change it at this stage. For Debian, a community project, because of the backlash from a vocal minority of their community, held a stakeholder vote to see if the project would continue to support the choice of the minority of their stakeholders and that decision came back no for many reasons. For Debian, forking the project, which is now official, will weaken its market position thus leading to RedHat and Windows to gain ground against it thus making other maintainers and companies less likely to continue to support it. That is fine is you prefer Debian to be a hobbyist flavor of linux rather than a largely supported one with many 3rd party applications. I prefer that it continue to have large 3rd party support but, that means making compromises and living with the result, no matter how sour it tastes. To try and have a large repository of 3rd party software and to fork the distribution over every major issue is trying to have your cake and eat it too.
My point was to point out how ugly the community got when it was something trivial that there was no problem installing both and letting individual users choose their favorite. I saw system admins fired over the fact that they wouldn't install (or worse, uninstall behind another admin's back) the editor they despised even though it caused zero issues to have both on the system. And the most recent, not in fun, argument over the emacs/vi issue was three years ago which is complete stupidity taken to an even more irrational level. But, overall, you're right about the arguments being gone overall as the world moved on but, there are still zealots that continue to fight this ridiculous fight decades later. My intention was to state, now that it is actually something serious, that the community will get really bloody.
Since I wrote my original post, it has been announced that the anti-systemd crowd are forking Debian. I count it a bit as "I'm taking my ball and going home!" because they lost but, that is their prerogative. I wish them the best of luck and hopefully the two new communities will stop the vitriol and hate of each other and just work on their respective projects.
Ironic the fictional land of Barbie, with a supposedly positive message for girls about careers in tech, is more misogynistic than the reality it seeks to change.
I'm pessimistic enough to believe that it didn't seek to change anything. I'm male so I'm not really an expert on Barbie but, everything I have ever seen and heard about "her" indicates that she's an unrealistic rich girl (or gold digger) that is obsessed about her body and possessing things and that the only thing she really encourages young girls to be is trophy wives with maybe an interesting side job for fun. I've never heard of anything that indicates that Mattel has ever truly marketed Barbie as a positive role model for girls to be body positive and self-determining of their own futures. They just give in when popular news pays a little more attention to what Barbie really sells than they are comfortable with because too much focus might actually bring about change.
Since I stuck my neck into this issue I just want to state, for the record, that women and men should have the same opportunities to become whatever they want to be, whether that be house(wife|husband), coder, combat infantry, CEO or President or anything else.
I haven't used some of the distros you listed but, I know distros such as gentoo are a build your own linux kit wheres Redhat and Ubuntu are intended to "work out of the box" with Debian somewhere in the middle. That makes a major difference in how the maintainers set things up and what level of alternatives they wish to supply. Each method has their advantages which is why each type exists. Most 3rd party products for linux prefer the Redhat and Ubuntu approach because they have a much better idea of what kind of environment they are coding for. But, if you really want to learn everything there is to know about linux or you want to be able to decide exactly how you want your system, gentoo all the way. It's ideal for the community that all these options continue to exist though many software companies would strongly disagree.
This is the same community that you can still start a street fight, or at least a troll war, by asking "Which is better: emacs or vi?" I'm not sure they're ever going to get over this. But, like the above question, the world will move on and leave them behind.
Having worked for a school district, I can tell you that licensing was a major issue but, not for the reasons that most people think. It has nothing to do with cost even though the licenses were pricy. The problem was the technical solutions that Microsoft instituted to try and enforce their licensing that was the issue. We either had to do limited activation licences that were use and loose which is a major problem when you're doing network imaging as you burn through the licences like they're tissue paper or you had to run clunky and unreliable "activation servers" with severe technical limitations and were even more problematic with people with laptops. In the end, we had to do a hybrid solution on both methods to try and keep our copies of Windows and Office activated and even then it wasn't 100% effective. We were looking for ANY alternative to this nightmare that we could make work; even if it wasn't ideal.
I certainly don't disagree with you. It's just hard as a school to find software or services that meet your needs that don't come with a Faustian price tag.
Public schools hand over student data to corporations and have for a long time. I've worked in multiple school districts since 1994 and I have not encountered an exception. Though it has been steadily increasing since software as a service has been hitting education channels. If you want to start your own privacy-oriented charter school, more power to you; good luck trying to get any IT, truancy or grade services/software though.
From what I understand about Osama Bin Laden, he knew this is exactly what would happen. He knew all of the players involved and what they desired (he was trained and worked for them for years, after all) and all he had to do was give a catalyst to scare all of us to allow our own wolves to devour us. He may have been a monster but, he was a very intelligent man.
As far as what another post said, yes, we were already heading this way but, this sped up the clock by a few decades to bring this all here now. In some twisted way, Osama may have done us a favor by making this happen so fast that we are aware of it instead of it feeling like a natural progression. (Note: Do not take this statement as me condoning his actions; I don't.)
The problem with this is that most of us have no alternatives and those few that do tend to have one (1) alternative and it's often another name on the list. The problem is that these companies know this; hell, they've payed good money to make sure it is like this and they're spending even more money to make sure it stays this way. The only way to fix this at this stage is to let your congresspeople know that you'll fire them if they don't fix this.
I especially enjoyed the fact that oilfield waste pits kill more birds than wind turbines. That takes the issue out of play in this argument right there. You don't even have to argue maters of scale.
If I had mod points at the moment, I'd mark you informative and this would be anonymous.
Slashdot Mirror
For the answer on why we don't reveal this information read up on the 1929 bank failures. For the tl;dr crowd: There's a very good reason that we don't say which banks are having problems because they get ran out of business quickly (often within hours) and everyone that didn't make it in time looses their money. It happened in 1929 in the U.S. and it destroyed our economy for a decade.
Most industrialized economies are designed to be ran with continual inflation. Central banks around the world consider 1.5-3.0% annual inflation to be ideal with 2.0-2.5% to be the sweet spot. The only time you hear about inflation is when it gets outside this range. Capitalist(ish) economies usually suffer a near collapse or total collapse when the currency hits 0% inflation or starts to deflate. Because of this, the money you keep always devalues and always will as long as we keep this economic model. I've never understood the rant against the intentional push for inflation that happened after the 2008 recession in the U.S. All that did was return inflation to the "safe" range. Both Bush and Obama supported doing this so it isn't even a Democrat/Republican issue. (Note to all the "gold standard" junkies: This happens with gold and silver too! ...and its price is more volatile. Our economy was designed to roughly mimic gold and silver without having to lug it around and have more control over the inflation.)
Now, if you hate the inflation based economic system in general, that's another matter. No, going "back to gold" will not change this. See reason above. Barter was the only real system we had in the past that didn't suffer from this design. I think that there can be better systems but, it would take someone much smarter than me to design one and have it work for a global economy. (We're talking Nobel prize territory here.)
Very true. There's nothing saying they're mutually exclusive. I'm in the U.S. so we have the fully private for-profit prison system here. Dirtiest business since nuclear waste dumping.
More like enshrining the outdated copyright cartels into law with their own legal enforcement powers so they can keep funneling money into political campaigns
.
And the futile game of whack-a-mole continues. I wonder just how long media companies will take to realize that this is futile? My guess is they'll go out of business first.
I hereby nominate you for sainthood.
Well, he did kill someone for a Mentos commercial plug. That's pretty evil.
Thank you!
Besides, this is all about the public perception of Barbie. That means what men "know" about her as well as women.
Using the term "mansplaining" instantly lost Theaetetus any form of credibility.
Isn't that supposed to be the agenda of every Catholic? (and most other religions)
I can say, as someone with decent knowledge on the topic that not doing security testing is standard procedure at most companies. Testing costs money and causes delays, something no corporation wants. Until the cost of ignoring the problem exceeds the savings of proactively dealing with it, this will continue to be the case.
I would actually argue that it is at this point. As a hobbyist project as linux was long ago, many forkes were good thing as it gave the general community a lot of options and they could choose their prefered setup and the user was expected to handle any technical and coding issues between the different systems was everybody was at least a tech if not a coder and such solutions were realistically expected. That is not linux today with the exception of gentoo and a few others which you tend not to see in company servers. Linux today is a large product backed by many people and corporations and if you expect to continue to have their support and assistance, you need to work out solutions and find the best one for the majority of stakeholders involved (this does not just mean code quality exclusively though that is a factor) and everyone else to back that decision once it is made or else 3rd party vendors and large companies will find a different solution that doesn't involve linux; hence Windows' continued dominance.
This decision is what happened with RedHat and Debian. The stakeholders evaluated their options and decided, right or wrong, that systemd was the best solution for them. For RedHat, since it is a company rather than a community project, that is the end of it and no amount of complaining by it's online community is going to change it at this stage. For Debian, a community project, because of the backlash from a vocal minority of their community, held a stakeholder vote to see if the project would continue to support the choice of the minority of their stakeholders and that decision came back no for many reasons. For Debian, forking the project, which is now official, will weaken its market position thus leading to RedHat and Windows to gain ground against it thus making other maintainers and companies less likely to continue to support it. That is fine is you prefer Debian to be a hobbyist flavor of linux rather than a largely supported one with many 3rd party applications. I prefer that it continue to have large 3rd party support but, that means making compromises and living with the result, no matter how sour it tastes. To try and have a large repository of 3rd party software and to fork the distribution over every major issue is trying to have your cake and eat it too.
And the most recent, not in fun, argument over the emacs/vi issue was three years ago....
Edit: Sorry, I meant to say the most recent argument I personally witnessed.
My point was to point out how ugly the community got when it was something trivial that there was no problem installing both and letting individual users choose their favorite. I saw system admins fired over the fact that they wouldn't install (or worse, uninstall behind another admin's back) the editor they despised even though it caused zero issues to have both on the system. And the most recent, not in fun, argument over the emacs/vi issue was three years ago which is complete stupidity taken to an even more irrational level. But, overall, you're right about the arguments being gone overall as the world moved on but, there are still zealots that continue to fight this ridiculous fight decades later. My intention was to state, now that it is actually something serious, that the community will get really bloody.
Since I wrote my original post, it has been announced that the anti-systemd crowd are forking Debian. I count it a bit as "I'm taking my ball and going home!" because they lost but, that is their prerogative. I wish them the best of luck and hopefully the two new communities will stop the vitriol and hate of each other and just work on their respective projects.
That was my favorite of the day but, I always used specialized editors to do my coding and nano just to make quick fixes or edit short scripts.
Ironic the fictional land of Barbie, with a supposedly positive message for girls about careers in tech, is more misogynistic than the reality it seeks to change.
I'm pessimistic enough to believe that it didn't seek to change anything. I'm male so I'm not really an expert on Barbie but, everything I have ever seen and heard about "her" indicates that she's an unrealistic rich girl (or gold digger) that is obsessed about her body and possessing things and that the only thing she really encourages young girls to be is trophy wives with maybe an interesting side job for fun. I've never heard of anything that indicates that Mattel has ever truly marketed Barbie as a positive role model for girls to be body positive and self-determining of their own futures. They just give in when popular news pays a little more attention to what Barbie really sells than they are comfortable with because too much focus might actually bring about change.
Since I stuck my neck into this issue I just want to state, for the record, that women and men should have the same opportunities to become whatever they want to be, whether that be house(wife|husband), coder, combat infantry, CEO or President or anything else.
I haven't used some of the distros you listed but, I know distros such as gentoo are a build your own linux kit wheres Redhat and Ubuntu are intended to "work out of the box" with Debian somewhere in the middle. That makes a major difference in how the maintainers set things up and what level of alternatives they wish to supply. Each method has their advantages which is why each type exists. Most 3rd party products for linux prefer the Redhat and Ubuntu approach because they have a much better idea of what kind of environment they are coding for. But, if you really want to learn everything there is to know about linux or you want to be able to decide exactly how you want your system, gentoo all the way. It's ideal for the community that all these options continue to exist though many software companies would strongly disagree.
Take your vim and shove it! </sarcasm>
This is the same community that you can still start a street fight, or at least a troll war, by asking "Which is better: emacs or vi?" I'm not sure they're ever going to get over this. But, like the above question, the world will move on and leave them behind.
Then you're yelling at the kids "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!
Having worked for a school district, I can tell you that licensing was a major issue but, not for the reasons that most people think. It has nothing to do with cost even though the licenses were pricy. The problem was the technical solutions that Microsoft instituted to try and enforce their licensing that was the issue. We either had to do limited activation licences that were use and loose which is a major problem when you're doing network imaging as you burn through the licences like they're tissue paper or you had to run clunky and unreliable "activation servers" with severe technical limitations and were even more problematic with people with laptops. In the end, we had to do a hybrid solution on both methods to try and keep our copies of Windows and Office activated and even then it wasn't 100% effective. We were looking for ANY alternative to this nightmare that we could make work; even if it wasn't ideal.
I certainly don't disagree with you. It's just hard as a school to find software or services that meet your needs that don't come with a Faustian price tag.
Public schools hand over student data to corporations and have for a long time. I've worked in multiple school districts since 1994 and I have not encountered an exception. Though it has been steadily increasing since software as a service has been hitting education channels. If you want to start your own privacy-oriented charter school, more power to you; good luck trying to get any IT, truancy or grade services/software though.
From what I understand about Osama Bin Laden, he knew this is exactly what would happen. He knew all of the players involved and what they desired (he was trained and worked for them for years, after all) and all he had to do was give a catalyst to scare all of us to allow our own wolves to devour us. He may have been a monster but, he was a very intelligent man.
As far as what another post said, yes, we were already heading this way but, this sped up the clock by a few decades to bring this all here now. In some twisted way, Osama may have done us a favor by making this happen so fast that we are aware of it instead of it feeling like a natural progression. (Note: Do not take this statement as me condoning his actions; I don't.)
The problem with this is that most of us have no alternatives and those few that do tend to have one (1) alternative and it's often another name on the list. The problem is that these companies know this; hell, they've payed good money to make sure it is like this and they're spending even more money to make sure it stays this way. The only way to fix this at this stage is to let your congresspeople know that you'll fire them if they don't fix this.
I especially enjoyed the fact that oilfield waste pits kill more birds than wind turbines. That takes the issue out of play in this argument right there. You don't even have to argue maters of scale.
If I had mod points at the moment, I'd mark you informative and this would be anonymous.